Style Bashing

[drop bear]

You're confusing style bashing with something else. If I don't say something bad about a style, that doesn't automatically say something bad about another style.

If you suggest a good style is the same as a bad style.

That is saying a style is bad.

 

[Steve]

As a practitioner of an art that gets a lot of bashing, I think there is a huge and obvious difference between honest criticism and mean-spirited style bashing.

If somebody politely points out things that are true, like that my style lacks well developed ground fighting, I'd be the first to agree. Or if they point out that from the standpoint of functionality, we neglect sparring with other systems and place an awful lot of emphasis on complex sensitivity drills that don't immediately translate into (or maybe never translate into) practical fighting skills when applied against well trained, resisting opponents. Yeah, I can totally see that perspective.

Basically, from their perspective, and considering their goals, they are saying that my style seems ineffective to them.

Politely questioning the effectiveness of a style or training method for specific goals is not the same as saying your system, you, and the horse you road in on "suck"! Although many will take it that way.

.... Hmmm. Maybe that's why I not very popular in my old association any more?

This is gold. And further, if we can manage to do this, it opens up the possibility of some really interesting discussions that are currently just not possible around here.

 

[drop bear]

We are ignoring (we always do this) that we do not know what we do not know. And anyone who is not proficient (at the minimum) in Style X is simply not qualified to state what its characteristics are, let alone criticize them.

A person could say "Style X" has no ground game, therefore it is deficient. It may be a matter of fact that Style X has no ground game. What is not known is whether or not Style X *should have* a ground game. That isn't something a person non-proficient in that exact style could say. It has become opinion. You could say Style X has no ground game. But continuing to say "therefore, Style X is deficient" is opinion. And if a person persists in insisting the deficiency exists, then in my opinion they are style bashing. Or, put another way, they are talking out of their nether orifice.

We have members here who measure all martial arts styles based on criteria that are important to them. Useful when one is evaluating systems for oneself. Perhaps less so when a given style isn't intended for what that person wants it to be.

"How good is it in the cage?" Not at all? Then it's garbage.

"How good is it in self-defense?" Not? Garbage.

"Can you win a tournament with it?" No? Garbage.

Do you understand that we measure things by our own frame of reference, and despite what we all think of our standards, they are opinions, and that's all they are.

"The sky is clear today" can be a factual statement. "Therefore it's a nice day." That's opinion. What if I'm a farmer hoping for rain?

I practice a style that is well-respected in general terms. I am a below-average practitioner, nonetheless I try my best and I enjoy it. I don't practice it for the octagon, or for self-defense, or for tournaments, or for anything really describable. I practice it because *I WANT TO* and that's all the reason I need. I believe I can use it to defend myself should I be called upon to do so. Will I have to? Not likely. Will I be able to beat a 'roid raging practitioner of Style X or Y or whatever who has ground game and high kicks and bulging pectoral muscles? No idea. Maybe not. WHO CARES? I'm in my 60s. I'm beyond all that kiddy garbage.

But still we get the usual accusation. If you can't use it in a cage match, it's no good.

Dude. If you want to get in the cage, do that. Leave me out. I'm fine doing what I do, as well as I can manage to do it.

We also continue to pit style against style as if there were not great, average, and lousy practitioners of each of them. Style A is far superior to Style X because this guy and that guy, blah blah blah. Except you can have a lousy Style A practitioner lose to a great Style X practitioner any day of the week. There's no objective standard to compare, but we insist on doing it. Gets a little old, to be honest.

But hey, "I'm just stating facts," so you can't take offense.

Why aren't we all proficient in every style Automatically just by the nature that not all practitioners need to conform to other practitioners expectations?

You might want to get training or belts. But I don't.
That shouldn't effect that I am proficient in that system.

My proficiency is determined by my personal standard.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

A person could say "Style X" has no ground game, therefore it is deficient.

I won't use the word "deficient" but the term "trade off".

If we can all be honest about what we have and what we don't have, we can have much deeper level MA discussion.

When someone says that Chinese wrestling has no ground game, I will say that Chinese wrestling has mobility and follow up attack. You either commit yourself on the ground to deal with 1 opponent, or you move around to deal with many opponents if needed.

1. mobility:

2. follow up attack:

3. 1 against many:

 

[JowGaWolf]

For a real fight, the pavement is absolutely to the advantage of the person who is better at takedowns and getting on top if the fight goes to the ground.

Not a misconception. Pavement gives me better footing for my footwork.
In terms of my kung training and application of techniques using shuffling footwork grass has a higher slipping risk than pavement.

Does BJJ train on concrete? If not, then what are some of the reasons?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If we can all be honest about what we have and what we don't have, we can have much deeper level MA discussion.

You still insist that martial arts can only be seen through one lens - yours. That's a problem, in my opinion. It makes it hard to talk to you about martial arts when everything has to be seen through your values.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

You still insist that martial arts can only be seen through one lens - yours. That's a problem, in my opinion. It makes it hard to talk to you about martial arts when everything has to be seen through your values.

You look at MA from your point of view. I look at MA from my point of view. You say what you want to say. I say what I want to say. That's online discussion.

 

[JowGaWolf]

To let the earth to punch on your opponent's head is a good finish move.

View attachment 29708

You can only do this if you can grab your opponent. If your opponent's mobility increases when on concrete then you will have increased difficulty in grabbing a person with good footwork. If you aren't able to grab me long enough then the earth will not punch mean, nor will I see the ground.

If you guys would like to see this in action then I'll try to get it on video for you against some grapplers. I'll try to find some who want to try this on concrete.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You look at MA from your point of view. I look at MA from my point of view. You say what you want to say. I say what I want to say. That's online discussion.

Yes, but it's not a 'statement of fact'. That's the problem, my friend. You think your opinion is the same as a fact, or at least you behave as if it were.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

You can only do this if you can grab your opponent.

To catch a kicking leg can happen quite often.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

You think your opinion is the same as a fact,

You are a 7th degree BB. When a white belt says that you are wrong, do you want to express your opinion and prove that you are not wrong?

If one doesn't believe in himself, he should get a rope, find a quiet place, and hang himself.

A: The fish is very happy.
B: You are not the fish. How do you know the fist is happy?
A: You are not me. How do you know that I don't know the fish is happy?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Isn't suggesting that no styles suck also style bashing?

I wouldn't focus so much on it "sucking" as much as I would focus on if it's appropriate for fighting. Something can be crap for one situation and gold for another. A boat is the best thing to have if you are in the ocean. It loses its advantage in the desert.

A screw driver works well for what it was created for but it doesn't make a good shovel. Jow Ga works well for striking, mobility, decent with stand up grappling. But it's not the best tool for fighting on the ground. This only hold true within the limitations of my knowledge. It's not bashing, it's just a limitation which is why I'm always saying that I don't play in BJJs sandbox.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Not a misconception. Pavement gives me better footing for my footwork.
In terms of my kung training and application of techniques using shuffling footwork grass has a higher slipping risk than pavement.

Does BJJ train on concrete? If not, then what are some of the reasons?

Most of the time we don't because takedowns become more dangerous for the person being taken down and on the ground it can be pretty miserable for person who is losing the battle for top position. I've done it, but you need to really trust the control of the person you're sparring with, limit what takedowns you allow, and you can't train as long before the person stuck on the bottom starts to get abraded.

In a real fight, a high amplitude takedown on the pavement can potentially end things. If it doesn't and the fight goes to the ground, the pavement can be a weapon for the person who is better able to stay on top. There's a reason why I teach my students to stay on top. The guard is just a tool to stay in the fight if you've lost that battle for top control, not a place you want to go to voluntarily.

 

[Steve]

I wouldn't focus so much on it "sucking" as much as I would focus on if it's appropriate for fighting. Something can be crap for one situation and gold for another. A boat is the best thing to have if you are in the ocean. It loses its advantage in the desert.

A screw driver works well for what it was created for but it doesn't make a good shovel. Jow Ga works well for striking, mobility, decent with stand up grappling. But it's not the best tool for fighting on the ground. This only hold true within the limitations of my knowledge. It's not bashing, it's just a limitation which is why I'm always saying that I don't play in BJJs sandbox.

But if you have a boat that has a gaping hole in the hull, it's not much help in either the ocean or the desert. But it might still look like a really good boat.

So, to continue your analogy here, what folks seem to be proposing is that we shouldn't acknowledge the giant hole in the hull of the boat, because that's bashing the boat. But if we could, as @geezer suggested earlier, all acknowledge the hole in the hull, we might be able to have a pretty interesting discussion about whether the boat meets some other need (i.e., it could be simply a roof over someone's head and not required to float), or possibly even chat about what it might take to make it seaworthy.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Because you are dragging down the performance of those styles that have put the effort in to be good.

This is a personal crusade. Since day one, I've said I've wanted to be a good representation of Jow Ga Kung Fu. I didn't think about what other's did or are doing. It was my own standard. To be able to say that "there's this one person who is good at it." is still better than saying that there is no one. As long as you can find at least one, then it doesn't drag the system down in terms of being able to use it in a fight.

If people only want to train for health then they would still have to create a standard in which the results reflect the benefit of practice.

 

[Steve]

This is a personal crusade. Since day one, I've said I've wanted to be a good representation of Jow Ga Kung Fu. I didn't think about what other's did or are doing. It was my own standard. To be able to say that "there's this one person who is good at it." is still better than saying that there is no one. As long as you can find at least one, then it doesn't drag the system down in terms of being able to use it in a fight.

If people only want to train for health then they would still have to create a standard in which the results reflect the benefit of practice.

I think you're a great example of someone who is doing great work within your style. For the purposes of this discussion on this site, if we can't really even talk about the deficiencies in how your style is trained (whether it's me or you or anyone else saying it) because that's style bashing, then we don't even get to the point of recognizing you as a notable exception. And what a shame, because there's a lot of good stuff to appreciate in how you approach your training.

 

[Flying Crane]

I tried to invite a Goju-Ryu Karate BB to join in my fighting club. I told him that the purpose was we could all learn from each other. He said, "My style is perfect. I don't need to learn from other MA styles".

Did he actually say this? Or was it more like “I already have plenty to work on in my training and I don’t have the time or energy or interest or inclination to try and bring in stuff from outside the system; that would simply be a distraction from where I need to place the focus of my efforts”?

Because those are dramatically different messages.

 

[JowGaWolf]

To catch a kicking leg can happen quite often.

This is why it's good to kick when your opponent throws a punch.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Did he actually say this?

The Goju-Ryu Karate BB was the Austin YMCA Karate club instructor.

Those was exactly the words that came out of his mouth. Since there were 3 of us (TKD guy Sandy Nash, Okinawa Karate guy John Ray, and myself), he might think we tried to challenge him in a fight.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

This is why it's good to kick when your opponent throws a punch.

Stay away from your opponent's hands when you kick is a smart strategy.

When I said that, did I think my opinion is the same as a fact?