Is it the person or the style?

[TheGhostDog]

Apoweyn,
The reason I didn't name a style was because I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings cause I'm such a nice guy .
The main reason I made up an art was to show some of the common problems associated with martial arts i.e, the system is based on a flawed premise, the system is not tested to prove its effectiveness, the system is not continually tested to ensure that the art evolves and doesn't become stagnant.

As I said, some people seem to take the view that it is the individual, not the system that is flawed. This is incorrect. Please note however that an individual obviously plays a part, however no system is perfect.

What is so hard to believe that an art could be based on a false premise ? The founders of martial arts were not gods, they were ordinary people who believed that what they developed was a viable form of self-defense. Unless they tested each and every component of their art in a fight many times, certain parts of that art are going to be based on theory, on "I believe this will work". They could have very well been wrong ! Students of the founder are then going to take this theory and believe it a fact, believe it had been tested and proven to work.

Take an art such as BJJ. BJJ is constantly evolving because it's students fight in tournaments, in Vale Tudo matches and in the streets. Thus the techniques are put in a pressure cooker and if they don't work they are re-examined and either modified or thrown out. BJJ is an art where it's theory and it's techniques are constantly being put to the test and the experience of its exponents is being brought back into the art to benefit all students. Any new innovation in BJJ will spread around the globe in 12 months as people see it in tournaments, or NHB matches and then train and evolve it.

Compare this with say, a style of karate. How many karate students are constantly being involved in fights (NHB, streetfights, etc) ? How many instructors are going to change what they do, the way they throw a punch in sparring or in kata based on their students success with it in fights ? Pretty much none, because karate instructors always believe that the founding fathers of their arts knew everything, when this is patently not the case.

So to believe that all arts are equal when some are constantly testing and evolving their art, and others train as if in a vacuum is patently false.

[ArrowFists]

Its certainly the person doing the style (and instruction).

An instructor could teach a guy two punches, and if that guy took those two punches, added his own little spice to the mix and trained hard, he'd kick a lot of @$$.

There's nothing magical about the martial arts, it all comes down to the training (mental/physical). Better training=better fighter in every case.

Styles truly mean squat.

[TheGhostDog]

ArrowFists couldn't be more wrong.

Of course some people are going to be naturally good at fighting, but that's not the point. The point is, some styles are going to be more effective than others in a fight.

E.g. If two people with exactly the same attributes were to train, one in BJJ and one in aikido, for six months then fight, I'd put all my money on the BJJ guy. There would be no contest. Make it ten years - same thing.

[apoweyn]

GhostDog,

Originally posted by TheGhostDog
Apoweyn, The reason I didn't name a style was because I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings cause I'm such a nice guy .

I don't disbelieve that you're a nice guy. But do you honestly think that by trivializing the problem (comparing arts you disapprove of with ballet), you're taking the high road? You aren't.

The main reason I made up an art was to show some of the common problems associated with martial arts i.e, the system is based on a flawed premise, the system is not tested to prove its effectiveness, the system is not continually tested to ensure that the art evolves and doesn't become stagnant.

If these problems are so common, you should have been able to describe an actual martial art that features these 'flawed premises.' You didn't even attempt to honestly identify those premises. Instead, you contented yourself with parodying those styles. And that's not something to be admired. Honest inquiry is good. Belittling isn't.

As I said, some people seem to take the view that it is the individual, not the system that is flawed. This is incorrect. Please note however that an individual obviously plays a part, however no system is perfect.

I think you're misunderstanding the assertion. (At least, as I view it.)

What is so hard to believe that an art could be based on a false premise ? The founders of martial arts were not gods, they were ordinary people who believed that what they developed was a viable form of self-defense. Unless they tested each and every component of their art in a fight many times, certain parts of that art are going to be based on theory, on "I believe this will work". They could have very well been wrong ! Students of the founder are then going to take this theory and believe it a fact, believe it had been tested and proven to work.

Reread that paragraph, if you would. The founders were not gods. They failed to test their theories. Their students took their teachers' word for it and didn't test the theories either. And the style became doctrine.

And you're trying to tell me that the problem begins with the style? That it's a faulty premise? That's all backward. It suggests that [booming biblical voice]In the Beginning, there was Style; and it was Bad.[/booming biblical voice]

That's silly. There wasn't a flawed premise floating around that people then failed to examine and made into doctrine instead. People were involved from the beginning. Their shortcomings were involved from the beginning. Or maybe they didn't have shortcomings. And it was the shortcomings of later generations that led to a deterioration. Either way, it comes down to individuals. The style doesn't exist outside of the individuals who perform it. Individuals fail to test it. And individuals can make the decision to rectify that situation.

Take an art such as BJJ. BJJ is constantly evolving because it's students fight in tournaments, in Vale Tudo matches and in the streets. Thus the techniques are put in a pressure cooker and if they don't work they are re-examined and either modified or thrown out. BJJ is an art where it's theory and it's techniques are constantly being put to the test and the experience of its exponents is being brought back into the art to benefit all students. Any new innovation in BJJ will spread around the globe in 12 months as people see it in tournaments, or NHB matches and then train and evolve it.

And I wholeheartedly agree that this is a big strength of BJJ. But it's a big strength that is reliant on the individuals involved. If people in BJJ ever begin to slack off on that, then more theory is going to be allowed to creep in untested. As has happened with any style that gains popular acceptance. As long as all the individuals involved continue to insist on testing in a competitive environment, then all's well. But that isn't hardwired into the style. The style doesn't have the ability to 'force' people to uphold that standard. People decide to uphold that standard. And hopefully, they'll continue to do so.

That said, human nature is such that less dedicated people will creep in and try to capitalize on BJJ's popularity. Already, there are teachers in my area attempting to teach BJJ without having been competitors. Or combatants. Or whatever. That's what happens. Students don't want that kind of pressure. Teachers want more students. So they give the students what they want. Compromises are made. And quality deteriorates. All thanks to the individuals involved.

Compare this with say, a style of karate. How many karate students are constantly being involved in fights (NHB, streetfights, etc) ? How many instructors are going to change what they do, the way they throw a punch in sparring or in kata based on their students success with it in fights ? Pretty much none, because karate instructors always believe that the founding fathers of their arts knew everything, when this is patently not the case.

Again, reread this paragraph. How many karate students... How many instructors... Karate instructors always believe...

People make the decision to believe, not to believe, to test, not to test, to adapt, not to adapt. To believe otherwise is to chalk it up to a hopeless situation. And that's a fool's errand. Explain to me the myriad styles of karate. If karate instructors didn't believe in change, then there would be only one style, right? But there isn't. People observed things, made decisions, and came out with different results. Shotokan, Goju, Kyokushinkai, etc.

So to believe that all arts are equal when some are constantly testing and evolving their art, and others train as if in a vacuum is patently false.

Many individuals train in a vacuum. Styles don't train at all.

Personally, I do see people from many different styles testing their premises and making adjustments. And I'll be the first to admit that we have BJJ largely to thank for that. But even then, it comes down to individuals willing to see that and apply it to their own art. So when a taekwondo teacher recognizes that his hands need work and he could use a couple of good takedown defenses, he works on those things. And the next time, he doesn't get pummeled at punching range. He doesn't get taken down so easily. But he still has that strong and quick lead sidekick. He hasn't been hobbled by the fact that he did taekwondo. As a reasoning person, he observed, tested, and adapted.

So is the faulty premise of taekwondo that it's too reliant on kicks? Perhaps. Does that mean that a taekwondoka cannot train his hands? Nope. Is he still a taekwondoka? I don't see why not. So what's the faulty premise? Taekwondo doesn't disallow someone from being a good fighter. It's simply that most people don't want to test themselves that way. They'd rather stick with familiar territory.

We're all reasoning people. To suggest that some of us cannot be because of a style is absurd. Styles don't dictate understanding or choice. People do.


Stuart B.

[Suntzu]

As they say on mma.tv… apowyn is correct…

E.g. If two people with exactly the same attributes were to train, one in BJJ and one in aikido, for six months then fight, I'd put all my money on the BJJ guy. There would be no contest. Make it ten years - same thing.

this would be assuming that the Aikido was NOT training for competition(a hobbyist) while the BJJ IS training for a competition(a competitor)… give 2 people of similar attributes one based in BJJ… the other based in Aikido… and both training for the rules of the comp... 6 months is a good amount of time to produce 2 good fighters... and once the whistle blows... it will still come down to mano y mano...

but putting a hobbyist vs an athlete regardless of style… which I think you really mean when u put Aikido(which is gear towards a 'hobby' status) against BJJ(which is geared toward comps)… the outcome is not that hard to predict… but 2 athletes regardless of style... thats something to see...

[ArrowFists]

Originally posted by TheGhostDog
ArrowFists couldn't be more wrong.

Of course some people are going to be naturally good at fighting, but that's not the point. The point is, some styles are going to be more effective than others in a fight.

E.g. If two people with exactly the same attributes were to train, one in BJJ and one in aikido, for six months then fight, I'd put all my money on the BJJ guy. There would be no contest. Make it ten years - same thing.

Sorry, but you are the one who is wrong.

Simply because someone takes Bjj doesn't mean that he automatically will be able to beat an Aikidoka who's had the same level of training. There's simply far too many variables to consider (i.e. instruction, amount of training involved, natural ability or talent, etc.) to say that Bjj > Aikido, Bjj stylists > Aikidoka.

I will say this, Bjj schools tend to be a lot tougher in terms of fighting than more traditional schools. However, that's not the fault of the style, that's simply the way an instructor decided to teach his class. The problem is that the vast majority of MA schools, regardless of style, are places where kids and adults learn forms and kata and break boards. It's a social place, where people meet, have fun, get a taste of martial culture, and then go home. Certainly, a muscle-bound Bjj practicioner would roll up in a school like that and serve up a nice can of whoop-ass. However, that doesn't make Bjj a better style, it means that both schools of MA excel in two different directions. Even in that case, there could be a student in that class who could beat the Bjj exponent, simply because he's a better fighter.

[TheGhostDog]

ArrowFists,
Look, I'm not saying that there aren't naturally good fighters in some styles - but that doesn't mean those styles are as effective as others.

What I am saying is that some arts are based on faulty premises. E.g. Aikido. Aikido is based primarily on wrist and arm locks. The way it is trained to defend against a punch for example is to move to the side, grab the wrist or arm and apply a lock. Please ! This will not work !!! It might on someone who knows absolutely nothing about fighting, but even then it's still a big ask to grab the arm of a punch coming towards you.
Wrist locks are a great idea to control the guys arm if he's trying to draw his sword on you. Applying those principles to the way people fight today however is perilous. If he's punching at you, and he's a trained puncher, you've got virtually no chance of grabbing his wrist. Thus, this art is going to be less effective as say boxing, or wing-chun, in dealing with a punch (which is the most common attack these days).

I'm not trying to disparage Aikido. It can give someone all the benefits that you mentioned: meeting new people, having fun, getting a taste of martial culture. But a martial art is, first and foremost, about fighting and I don't believe that Aikido(as a style) is going to be equally effective in a fight as say boxing, or wing-chun or BJJ.

P.S. not all BJJ exponents are muscle-bound.

[TheGhostDog]

Apoweyn,
You've made some good points.
However, most people don't know about fighting - they only know what their instructor tells them, and I haven't heard too many instructors expound on their styles weaknesses to the students. So how are these people to know that what they are doing is ineffective ? Or where the holes in their art are ? Most people don't want to be getting into fights to see if what they do works - especially if they have a family or they're only doing a martial art as a hobby. I would suggest that probably many instructors haven't been in too many fights and are just passing on what they are told and so wouldn't know themselves, and would falsely believe that dropping an elbow on the back of their opponent's neck will stop the double-leg, or that their ****-weak reverse punch will stop their attacker.

You've even made my point by using TKD. I don't believe that TKD is as effective an art as Goju-Ryu. I actually have a black belt in TKD and went to a Goju school and got hammered because I couldn't keep my opponent at kicking distance. The goju mentality is to always move in or sideways, which easily counters the TKD strength, its kicks.
Q. Where do most fights start ?
A. At punching distance or closer.
Here is where Goju is strong, and where TKD is weak. Thus I believe in terms of self-defense on the street, Goju is far more effective than TKD.

[ArrowFists]

Originally posted by TheGhostDog
ArrowFists,
Look, I'm not saying that there aren't naturally good fighters in some styles - but that doesn't mean those styles are as effective as others.

What I am saying is that some arts are based on faulty premises. E.g. Aikido. Aikido is based primarily on wrist and arm locks. The way it is trained to defend against a punch for example is to move to the side, grab the wrist or arm and apply a lock. Please ! This will not work !!! It might on someone who knows absolutely nothing about fighting, but even then it's still a big ask to grab the arm of a punch coming towards you.
Wrist locks are a great idea to control the guys arm if he's trying to draw his sword on you. Applying those principles to the way people fight today however is perilous. If he's punching at you, and he's a trained puncher, you've got virtually no chance of grabbing his wrist. Thus, this art is going to be less effective as say boxing, or wing-chun, in dealing with a punch (which is the most common attack these days).

I'm not trying to disparage Aikido. It can give someone all the benefits that you mentioned: meeting new people, having fun, getting a taste of martial culture. But a martial art is, first and foremost, about fighting and I don't believe that Aikido(as a style) is going to be equally effective in a fight as say boxing, or wing-chun or BJJ.

P.S. not all BJJ exponents are muscle-bound.

I understand where you're coming from Ghost, MOST traditional MA schools like Aikido are slipping in their training. I agree that Bjj/Judo (or competitive fighters in general) are more inclined to be better fighters than your average black belt out of a McDojo. Honestly, if a Bjj blue belt went against your average karate black belt, I'd also probably put the money on the Bjj stylist, because I'd know what he had to go through as a Bjj stylist to get it.

The black belt in karate I'm not so sure about...

However, that's not the style, that's the TRAINING within the style. Aikido's concepts aren't flawed, its the way they're taught that's flawed (not that all Aikido instructors don't know what they're doing, but some stuff I've seen in a few Aikido schools are highly questionable). Get a good teacher and an eager student, and Aikido can send some folks to the hospital. I know, I've seen it being performed by friends of mine who were bouncers, and very highly ranked within the art.

Martial Arts is about fighting to some people. Not everyone enters the Martial Arts for the same reasons.

I didn't mean any insult by stating that Bjj stylists are muscle-bound. I was implying that they tend to be in shape, and highly athletic.

[TheGhostDog]

ArrowFists,
I'm not saying that the concepts in Aikido won't work at all, just that as a method of self-defence against someone trying to punch you, other arts would be more effective i.e. boxing, wing-chun. My whole point is to say that when it comes to fighting, not all arts are equal. Does it mean the other arts have no value ? Of course not, but it does mean that as a system of self-defence there are some arts better than others.


P.S. I was only pointing out that not all BJJ stylists are muscle-bound because unfortunately I'm not either

[joedoe]

I think the long and the short of it is that one art may handle a given self defence situation better than another e.g. BJJ handles being taken to the ground better than say, wing chun.

[TheGhostDog]

Joedoe is correct. Some things are going to occur in fights more often than others. The defenses to these things (such as grappling, punching, headbutts) are handled better by some arts than others, which leads me to believe that these arts are more effective in a fight than others, and thus the assumption that not all arts are equal when it comes to fighting.

[joedoe]

I can see your point - some arts deal with the more 'common ' elements of your 'typical' fight better than others - but don't you think it is still situation dependent?

[SLC]

Even the "BEST" art, taught by a very poor teacher will not produce good results.

Even a "poor" art (in some people's minds ) will produce good results with an excellent teacher.

If a person is new to martial arts, they should seek out the best teacher in their community... period. Haggeling over this art or that art is a waste of their time. In a few years, maybe they will want to change... maybe not.

['MegaPoint]

Originally posted by TheGhostDog
Apoweyn,
The reason I didn't name a style was because I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings cause I'm such a nice guy .
The main reason I made up an art was to show some of the common problems associated with martial arts i.e, the system is based on a flawed premise, the system is not tested to prove its effectiveness, the system is not continually tested to ensure that the art evolves and doesn't become stagnant.

As I said, some people seem to take the view that it is the individual, not the system that is flawed. This is incorrect. Please note however that an individual obviously plays a part, however no system is perfect.

What is so hard to believe that an art could be based on a false premise ? The founders of martial arts were not gods, they were ordinary people who believed that what they developed was a viable form of self-defense. Unless they tested each and every component of their art in a fight many times, certain parts of that art are going to be based on theory, on "I believe this will work". They could have very well been wrong ! Students of the founder are then going to take this theory and believe it a fact, believe it had been tested and proven to work.

Take an art such as BJJ. BJJ is constantly evolving because it's students fight in tournaments, in Vale Tudo matches and in the streets. Thus the techniques are put in a pressure cooker and if they don't work they are re-examined and either modified or thrown out. BJJ is an art where it's theory and it's techniques are constantly being put to the test and the experience of its exponents is being brought back into the art to benefit all students. Any new innovation in BJJ will spread around the globe in 12 months as people see it in tournaments, or NHB matches and then train and evolve it.

Compare this with say, a style of karate. How many karate students are constantly being involved in fights (NHB, streetfights, etc) ? How many instructors are going to change what they do, the way they throw a punch in sparring or in kata based on their students success with it in fights ? Pretty much none, because karate instructors always believe that the founding fathers of their arts knew everything, when this is patently not the case.

So to believe that all arts are equal when some are constantly testing and evolving their art, and others train as if in a vacuum is patently false.

How many people ever fight for real OR a living? About 10-15% at the most and I doubt that most folks on here have ever been in a real life-or-death, grown-up conflict. So please, no talking from the arse! You make good points, but there is a lot of fallacy in your argument(s). All things that fail to adapt will perish. Adaptation doesn't include change for changes sake. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Of course all good systems, traditional or otherwise, have adapted to better suit the needs of today. The human body hasn't changed for 100,000 years, so many times what worked "back then" in the old days will work just fine now. What do you really know about BJJ/GJJ?

If you talk to the Gracies they will say that they have not changed a darn thing! They emphasize the basics they've always taught,and tend to stay away from butterfly guards and other tournament manifestations. Now you hear MMA guys talking about how TRADITIONAL GJJ can't cut it. B ullsh it!!! K.I.S.S., ya' know? Presently, Rorion is restructuring his tournaments so that wrestling tactics are harder to accomplish. You know- take down, pin and stall. Win by points. The only points on the street are gun, stiletto and knife points, hahaha! He wants it like it WAS (I guess that's devolution) before BJJ become commercialized. Submissions and good takedowns and controls are what count in real grappling. Not booty hugging for 15 minutes! Now Caique, their number one BB outside the family, has some different ideas, but not drastically. He can do that though as he is just like a Gracie or Machado.

You have very limited knowledge of real karate, huh? You probably think that Japanese Karate is the epitome of Karate. Hahaha, oh well, What real (Okinawan) karate-ka know WILL hurt you, fo' sheez', as the youngsters say. Do not lump all Karate or Chuan Fa together. You'll be surprised to find that the US Military (Army) sees utility in teaching BJJ to its Rangers as well as TKD! Go figure. The Marines teach their recruits Okinawan karate and they even have a belt system. The government doesn't waste money on things like that, usually. They may not research the $500 toilet seat cover, but they rarely waste money on life-or-death things.

Let me address my fellow Es-Say from SA! Bruh, forget Vale Tudo Rangel. It is BS. Bad budo and bad for you. Those people are just sadistic know-nothings. If you wanna learn GJJ or BJJ Check out Karun (a dude) at SW Karate Institute. Do you want to learn a Chinese art specifically? I study Mastumura Orthodox Shorin (Okinawan MA) with one of the best and most knowledgeable Karate-Ka in the world! It is very Chinese yet very Okinawan, haha! Weapons, grappling, forms, fighting, 2 man drills, koteate (kotekitai)>body hardening, and Chi gong. The only thing is it is in Bastrop at his private dojo in his backyard, and he has to interview you before he will teach you privates, the way you should learn MAs.

There are like 3 Wing Chun schools here. Wing Tsun/Chun is a sister (crane influenced) art. I like to look at it as "Matsumura light". I checked them out and the instructor was mediocre at one, and really defensive at the other. I never visited the third. Forget the other schools 'cause there ain't shi t in So-Tex! No real BJJ, except me for awhile . I don't teach it anymore, but me and my bro still roll. I use to be Caique's rep here, but I figured that grappling stuff out well enough and am concentrating on my base art- Shorin Ryu. Good luck in finding something. I am a Nidan (2nd degree BB) in Matsumura Orthodox, and depending upon things maybe you could train with my "group". Hit me up on here if it sounds cool. Good luck and have a pleasent journey up the mountain......

As Rakim said: "Is it the style or the stylist?" Hmmm, I think, no, I KNOW it's both....