Style bashing

[Martial D]

Dude, you keep on and on and on about this one criteria, actual combat in the school.

Who are these armies of deluded people that don't think fighting practice is useful???
When and where are you encountering them? Because I'm yet to encounter this view in MT.

And what makes you think that the class teaching is the be all and end all of the style??

For example, for maybe a year we didn't free spar in my karate class, not because my sensei was against it, but because we just ran out of time from the other drills he wanted us to learn.

So my friends and I went to each other's homes or the nearby park after class and beat each other up. But there were a number of older students who held their own when attacked on the street who only fought in class.

So what do you deduce about Shotokan karate from that?

I don't deduce anything about whole styles from anything. Like anything else, I'm sure some schools strive to make it effective, while others sell fantasy for money.

If you want to be a good cook, you practice cooking. If someone try to sell you cooking lessons without ever turning on an oven, chances are you aren't learning what you think you are learning.

 

[Steve]

It is belief. The whole system works more as a religion than a science. That is why all these basic discussion on dogma keep popping up.

In this case. "Who are you to question god?"

But we also get this idea that martial arts dont need to provide proof the sceptics do.

Actually. Here we go. Lets just look at a link of dogmatic arguments and see how many traps we are falling in to.

Dogmatic Close Quarter Battle (CQB)

I agree but want to be clear that this isn't to say that some folk's teacher is a fraud. He might be the best whatever in history. Point is that it's reasonable to be skeptical of any claims, and no, you don't need to know anything about that style to acknowledge this. We know that true prodigies exist in history, who learn things in a fraction of the time that other people need. Chances are, however, your martial arts instructor isn't one. And even then, prodigies still do the thing, whatever that thing is.

Some guys get very upset around here, believing that logic like this is directed at them as a personal I sult. They will say, "who cares what you think. I will train what works for me. It's not your business.". This isn't at all about that. its about appropriate skepticism and a reasonable belief that someone with experience limited to practice and training is probably not the best person to train others. And if you know and accept this and are still getting what you need, knock yourself out.

If, however, you resort to arguments which distort logic and belie everything we intuitively understand about how human beings learn to do things, you are perpetuating the problem.

 

[Steve]

Consider this. Is ashida Kim an expert? I'd say he is. Question is, what is his area of expertise? He is an expert in what he does. Is that self defense? Or is that something else?

 

[drop bear]

I agree but want to be clear that this isn't to say that some folk's teacher is a fraud. He might be the best whatever in history. Point is that it's reasonable to be skeptical of any claims, and no, you don't need to know anything about that style to acknowledge this. We know that true prodigies exist in history, who learn things in a fraction of the time that other people need. Chances are, however, your martial arts instructor isn't one. And even then, prodigies still do the thing, whatever that thing is.

Some guys get very upset around here, believing that logic like this is directed at them as a personal I sult. They will say, "who cares what you think. I will train what works for me. It's not your business.". This isn't at all about that. its about appropriate skepticism and a reasonable belief that someone with experience limited to practice and training is probably not the best person to train others. And if you know and accept this and are still getting what you need, knock yourself out.

If, however, you resort to arguments which distort logic and belie everything we intuitively understand about how human beings learn to do things, you are perpetuating the problem.

I think because martial arts relies so heavily on mysticism it creates this problem.

 

[FighterTwister]

I just want to interject here and say that the post I made earlier was about what I needed out of martial arts and what I was looking for as a package,

However having said that there needs to be people doing and mastering the one martial art we cant have half baked cakes if you know what I mean.

These days some MMA training center's create personal development plans and get you to go through an assessment testing first:-

• Competition Fighting
• Mastering a Martial Arts - BBJ, Karate, Kung-Fu, Tai-Chi, Tae Kwoon do, etc
  
• MMA - Only
  
• Boxing - Only
  
• Fitness - Regimes and Body Building
  
• or other add to the list all which provides choice.

But point is we need people to stick to one martial art and master it also others mat have a tailored solution or plan.

It all depends on a cost and time value and commitment to the objective you want to achieve.

Some people want to be Grand Masters others want a Mix of Tools others want a Tailored Solution others want to be Coaches and Trainers etc

There is also the need for specialized martial arts in the one art like any of these......... List of martial arts - Wikipedia

Its about personal direction, ambition and also creating balance in the industry.

 

[FighterTwister]

To further add, its also important to preserve all martial art types for future students and interest's from any of these in the list: List of martial arts - Wikipedia .......as an example.

Some are classical martial arts forms that focus on many other valuable aspects and techniques like energy, movement, power etc

Other martial arts are developed from roots and modernized for practical use or specialized environments like the military so on.

So you can see that there is always a big picture where everyone fits in and does their thing so to speak.

 

[DaveB]

I
So the kung fu full system trope. You know the one that makes Bruce Lees opinion of chun invalid.

I mean of course it is B.S. But you are going to fight these to the death.

But you know what contradicts this argument and what makes this twisted tangle of made up logic so funny.

It is not the style it is the individual. Didn't you bang on about all styles having a comon meta element. That there are these meta concept that make all styles work and the individual and the training make the martial artist.

But if it is not the style. Why do I need to know the style to judge?

I mean I'm an individual. You can't fool me.

If you want to use my argument against me you need to use the whole thing, not just half.

Yes it is skill in the universal elements of combat that determines an individual's effectiveness. So any trained individual can judge the training of another in terms of their grasp of the universal elements.

One could even judge the individual teaching of an instructor based on such things.

But as I have said again and again these universal elements are not the fighting style it's self. If you are judging them you are not judging the fighting style.

If you want to judge the strategy and tactics whose successful execution are dependent on the core combative skills, that is when you are judging a fighting style. And to do that you need to spend some time researching the art.

I never said anything about needing to be a master, though I'm sure some people will.

However, I think there is a difference between someone who went to a class for 6 months and stops, thinking he knows all there is to know and someone who actively researches multiple schools, asks pertinent questions based on prior ma experience and tests the concepts being put forward both in the class and in other training environments, then brings his findings back to the instructors to see what he might be doing wrong or if he's actually found a hole even the teacher can't fill.

 

[DaveB]

I don't deduce anything about whole styles from anything. Like anything else, I'm sure some schools strive to make it effective, while others sell fantasy for money.

If you want to be a good cook, you practice cooking. If someone try to sell you cooking lessons without ever turning on an oven, chances are you aren't learning what you think you are learning.

So you want to style bash, but you don't make judgements about whole styles?

 

[Martial D]

So you want to style bash, but you don't make judgements about whole styles?

Where have I 'style bashed'? If you refer to the thread title, it refers to the fact that any criticism of the sort offered in the op is often received as 'style bashing'. I think the general reception it got serves as pretty good evidence of this.

fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective

1. treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
   synonyms: flippant, flip, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, sardonic, joking, jokey, jocular, playful, sportive, teasing, mischievous

 

[DaveB]

Where have I 'style bashed'? If you refer to the thread title, it refers to the fact that any criticism of the sort offered in the op is often received as 'style bashing'. I think the general reception it got serves as pretty good evidence of this.

fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective

1. treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
   synonyms: flippant, flip, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, sardonic, joking, jokey, jocular, playful, sportive, teasing, mischievous

Ok. That still sits in conflict with your comments on the Any style can work thread, but whatever.

So it's your duty to point out unworkable b.s. in the martial arts. And you think the reactions to this thread prove that any such criticism is automatically taken as style bashing?

My main takeaway has been that a) it's not your business and b) if you must say something then how you say it will dictate the responses you get.

The fact that we've seen such different views in the same set of responses should help you understand the predicament you describe.

But I do have to ask: if your point is a whole style is unworkable b.s. and it's said from a position of ignorance; that is, without first having done significant research, then how is that not style bashing?

I am a firm believer in the principle, those too ignorant to speak politely do not deserve to be heard.

 

[Martial D]

Ok. That still sits in conflict with your comments on the Any style can work thread, but whatever.

So it's your duty to point out unworkable b.s. in the martial arts. And you think the reactions to this thread prove that any such criticism is automatically taken as style bashing?

My main takeaway has been that a) it's not your business and b) if you must say something then how you say it will dictate the responses you get.

The fact that we've seen such different views in the same set of responses should help you understand the predicament you describe.

But I do have to ask: if your point is a whole style is unworkable b.s. and it's said from a position of ignorance; that is, without first having done significant research, then how is that not style bashing?

I am a firm believer in the principle, those too ignorant to speak politely do not deserve to be heard.

No, no conflict. No, I don't believe every single person to invent a style and teach it to others got it right, no. That's an illogical position, and beside the point as presented in this thread.

Style is largely a name. Anyone can teach anything and label it karate or Kung Fu or whatever, and they certainly aren't all equal by default. I would say that within any 'style' there is a spectrum of effectiveness, it just isn't the same spectrum from style to style.

 

[DaveB]

No, no conflict. No, I don't believe every single person to invent a style and teach it to others got it right, no. That's an illogical position, and beside the point as presented in this thread.

Style is largely a name. Anyone can teach anything and label it karate or Kung Fu or whatever, and they certainly aren't all equal by default. I would say that within any 'style' there is a spectrum of effectiveness, it just isn't the same spectrum from style to style.

So what precisely do you observe that needs criticising/outing?

 

[Martial D]

So what precisely do you observe that needs criticising/outing?

Well, if you read the thread I've laid it out in a pretty straight forward fashion several times.

But once more; if you are being sold on the idea that what you are learning will prepare you for a fight or to defend yourself, yet your training involves no actual combat or sparring, you are being scammed.

It is with this brand of charlatan I take issue. The ones selling bs.

If no such claim is made, no such false promises made, no problem. This transcends styles into the realm of shady business practices.

 

[DaveB]

I meant can you point to a specific instance of this?

 

[Martial D]

I meant can you point to a specific instance of this?

Only anecdotal, so nothing you can weigh and measure I guess. I train out of a mixed bag sort of gym, about 20 of us of all different styles, most also attend some actual classes, mostly mma guys but we also have a few karate guys, cma guys, couple boxers, one guy that owns his own taekwondo school, etc etc. We mostly just spar and do pad work.We often get guys we jokingly refer to as one offs, of various styles and lineages. Invariably, they talk up their own skills, instructor, school, and invariably they get murked the first go of it.
It's these sorts that made me feel how I do about this subject. What if one of these guys, with their false confidence, instead of finding us thought they would use these imaginary skills when it was life or death? Who is responsible for selling them this fake confidence?

 

[Steve]

I meant can you point to a specific instance of this?

Sure. Everyone who trained with Frank Dux is one example that is well known. The key isn't that he is a fraud because he teaches Dux Ryu Ninjutsu,. That's his thing and it can be anything he wants. He's a fraud because he asserts that it imparts skills to students that it doesn't.

The kung fu guys who agree to test their arts (bravo to them) seem to believe they have learned skills that they have not. Whoever thought them certainly is an example. possibly, if these guys are teachers, they are also examples.

 

[drop bear]

I agree but want to be clear that this isn't to say that some folk's teacher is a fraud. He might be the best whatever in history. Point is that it's reasonable to be skeptical of any claims, and no, you don't need to know anything about that style to acknowledge this. We know that true prodigies exist in history, who learn things in a fraction of the time that other people need. Chances are, however, your martial arts instructor isn't one. And even then, prodigies still do the thing, whatever that thing is.

Some guys get very upset around here, believing that logic like this is directed at them as a personal I sult. They will say, "who cares what you think. I will train what works for me. It's not your business.". This isn't at all about that. its about appropriate skepticism and a reasonable belief that someone with experience limited to practice and training is probably not the best person to train others. And if you know and accept this and are still getting what you need, knock yourself out.

If, however, you resort to arguments which distort logic and belie everything we intuitively understand about how human beings learn to do things, you are perpetuating the problem.

If your teacher isn't a fraud. There is still no reason not to be skeptical. This is all part of the realistic feedback that is needed to make martial arts work.

Feed back in thought as well as action.

 

[drop bear]

I meant can you point to a specific instance of this?

Prove it doesn't happen. That is your thing isn't it?

 

[Steve]

If your teacher isn't a fraud. There is still no reason not to be skeptical. This is all part of the realistic feedback that is needed to make martial arts work.

Feed back in thought as well as action.

If my coach tells me something I've seen him do many times, I would believe him. But you're exactly right. As much as I like and respect my coaches, I wouldn't not just accept as true everything they say. I know one guy who is an elite level grappler, but I've never heard him allege to be a self defense expert. Conversely, one of the assistant instructors was a street level narcotics officer. I would take his word. Another guy had three or four UFC fights. I know he can fight, and take that for what it is. Maybe not self defense, but certainly a very tough dude. A fourth guy was a marine. All are legit, high level black belts in BJJ. There is no one siZe fits all, and I'm too much of an a-hole to have man crushes or hero worship (unless you're Colonel Steve Austin, the bionic man, who is still my hero).

 

[DaveB]

Prove it doesn't happen. That is your thing isn't it?

Why? I didn't say it doesn't happen I just asked for an example. I am trying to understand his position since it is not something I recognise from this forum.

And asking that people support claims that they treat as plain obvious truth, with either evidence or sound argument surely falls into your idea of appropriate scepticism?