Style Bashing

[Flying Crane]

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.

I appreciate the clarification.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

We disagree about the value of the sandwich method. It's almost always goes badly, even when it's done well.

I actually agree with you, for the most part. The concept behind it is sound, but I've only seen a few people who use it well - by which I mean people who use it to good effect (which doesn't really match the simplified examples usually given). I've seen many who use it to little effect, and for the rest it is just a bad idea.

In most cases, the problem is that people just stick different phrases in the three places, because they've only ever been given horribly simplified (and largely clumsy) examples when it was explained to them. It comes across as insincere (if you've seen While You Were Sleeping, it's like Joe Jr.'s line: "Nice.......sweater."). The concept is much broader, and is about giving both positive and negative feedback, and making sure people understand they are valued, even when particularly strong negative feedback is given.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Oof... sounds like style bashing to me, Gerry.


This is getting to my point here. I'm being cheeky above, but I really don't think we're too far apart. We agree on the gist of the above. But if the training model is intrinsic to the style, then the strengths and weaknesses of the training model represent the style, not the stylist or the school. In situations like this, I don't think it's a bad thing to just acknowledge that, so that we can accurately advise posters on the site when they ask questions on the subject. Said another way, if a style, for whatever reason, doesn't reliably or predictably develop fighting skill, I don't think it's bashing the style to say that out loud.

I think maybe the only thing we really differ on is the part about training method being intrinsic to a style. Of course, that depends how we define "style", so it's pretty mushy. But when I think of "style bashing", I think of it being about the art, which can be trained with varied methodologies. What's intrinsic to a style, in my opinion, is a small subset of how it's trained (even if it's trained much the same way everywhere). So, for an aiki art, it pretty much needs to include aiki/ki training exercises (or it's no longer that aiki art), but nearly everythning outside that could vary dramatically without it necessarily being a different style.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

That is saying a style is bad.

I don't think anyone has made that suggestion here.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

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.

I would be careful with this experiment unless you are very confident that your skill is significantly higher than that of the grapplers you would be sparring with.

This isn't a criticism of your ability or even of your methods. From what I can tell via your text descriptions and past videos, your approach to takedown defense is reasonable. (Although I would call it the first layer of defense - there are additional layers to learn once the first layer fails.) But having a legitimate approach to defending something and having solid skills in that approach do not make you invulnerable to the thing you're defending. No matter how good your defense, there is always someone out there who is better at beating your defense than you are at beating their offense.

In the case of defending takedowns, losing that battle on concrete can lead to unnecessary injuries. I don't see the point.

 

[JowGaWolf]

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.

One thing that I try to do, is point out something weak in my training or in my system before I point out something bad in another system. It has helped me to focus on my training and my weaknesses.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think you're a great example of someone who is doing great work within your style.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I haven’t posted here since deciding not to post a video of a power generation method we use in my school. This type of discussion is my reasoning for not posting it. To be clear, it isn’t the topic, it’s the disingenuous spirit on the part of several members involved. I won’t call it style bashing unless someone specifically calls out my school. Bashing gung fu doesn’t ruffle my feathers at all, there are hundreds of styles of Chinese martial arts with various origins and techniques and training methods. Some are respected, some are not, many are virtually unknown. I have not come across anyone here who has any experience with me, my martial art, my students, or my teaching methods. Keeping that in mind, I can’t really be offended by any remark or opinion on my particular martial art. Reading over some of the posts here, it is clear that this thread is like that “other” thread where we drag the oldest, deader than dead horse out of the dirt to give it yet one more beating. During these “discussions” some folks are polite and genuine and are willing to speak to perceived strengths or weaknesses of a certain style or version of martial arts they have experience in. Some folks smack their lips in anticipation of the chance to deride the opinions and experiences of those people and tell them in a “friendly and respectful” way that whatever martial art they practice is XYZ. This causes some dutiful use of semantics in order to toe the line of acceptable language on this forum. That does not change the intent or the meaning of the messages sent. I take umbrage with the behavior of folks that lack basic manners. I feel that this forum misses out on a lot of potentially valuable information as a result of the aforementioned issues. No one has all the answers or is correct in their assessments all of the time. Accepting that there are outcomes and possibilities outside of our experience demonstrates wisdom, maturity, and a willingness to learn. Why would any new martial arts student want to seek this forum out as a place of “friendly” information if every other thread is nothing but a bunch of opinionated, and disrespectful bickering? The moderation of language doesn’t change anything if the substance is still allowed to be toxic. Why would I want to share something here that I see as useful to the community? Would any of you non chef types be looking forward to bringing your favorite food recipe to a bunch of entitled food critics for a public review? In this way we actually dissuade people from sharing. We do ourselves, and the martial arts community at large a disservice as a result, it isnt a good look ladies and gentlemen. We can do better, that goes for everyone, myself included.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Bit of a misconception there. For friendly sparring, a grappler might prefer to go on the grass so that you can take the match to the ground without someone getting hurt. 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.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Bit of a misconception there. For friendly sparring, a grappler might prefer to go on the grass so that you can take the match to the ground without someone getting hurt. 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.

There is more to this. Being able to get better traction for footwork and connection to the ground will feel more advantageous to me for striking. I will also prefer to put the opponent down on a hard surface rather than a softer more compressible one. Most people will prefer to impact grass rather than asphalt.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I used to look down on MMA fighters for having "crappy" kicks. I didn't really go around and publicly bash them. However, I watched UFC fighters doing leg kicks, and my thought process as an orange belt in Taekwondo is, "Those kicks are horrible. There's no chamber, they can't even kick above the waist. The beginners in my TKD school are better than these pro fighters."

Taekwondo doesn't really include leg kicks (except for some outliers). TKD competitions require kicks above the belt, and the vast majority of my kicking training and sparring training was within line with those rules. Since then, I've altered my opinion on MMA kicks. But that's because I have more experience in variations of technique and more exposure to other styles.

It's not that I had an emotional response when watching the UFC match. It's that I had been told for the last several months to chamber my kick and kick above the waist. To me, that was the correct way of doing things.

I like this. That’s your experience rather than your ego talking.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Both MMA and Sanda allow leg catching. That change the kicking game.

Everything has a counter. Including leg catch.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

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

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

Why not just talk about why your style is great, or why your teacher is special, or something you learned that can be shared outside your gym? That sort of clears that up for you, no bashing necessary.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Totally agree with this. And pointing the bolded part out isn't bashing the style, even if the person who is misguided feels like it is.

How will we know if they are misguided? Who is the arbiter for that? What is the standard by which their belief will be judged? If it’s just opinions then one is as valid as another.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Not at all what I'm trying to say. There's a difference between intentionally misleading folks (which is fraud) and appreciating that there can be a lot of fun and benefits to training in a style that may not be developing any practical fighting skill.

Again, how do we know the intent? Intent is difficult to prove in court, nigh impossible in an online forum. I could go on a religion analogy here…

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

We disagree about the value of the sandwich method. It's almost always goes badly, even when it's done well.

Oh I don’t know, from what I’ve read, you likely make a decent sando. I would definitely give it a try before getting offended, or telling you that you made it wrong,

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

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.

Well said, Sir!

 

[Steve]

How will we know if they are misguided? Who is the arbiter for that? What is the standard by which their belief will be judged? If it’s just opinions then one is as valid as another.

Sometimes, it's by their own admission. We like to cook, you and me. There are a million ways to cook a chicken. What's right or wrong is mostly a matter of opinion and personal preference. But let's say someone likes to eat their chicken medium rare. You can be pretty sure, based on your own expertise, that the person is misguided. And you might be saving that person from making themselves or others sick by telling them so.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

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.

I will like to turn that boat upside down and use it for shelter. The hole will be my chimney, or my water catching basin, or my periscope aperture. Maybe the hole can be turned to advantage against someone who only sees a hole. Honestly, maybe not if it’s a giant hole.

 

[Steve]

Oh I don’t know, from what I’ve read, you likely make a decent sando. I would definitely give it a try before getting offended, or telling you that you made it wrong,

I make a damn good sandwich and I'm sure you do, too.

But generally not with feedback to people. Around here, things get squirrelly, and maybe folks here like a good feedback sandwich. But in real life as a manager who's job is to develop staff and manage performance, using the sandwich method will generally just make people distrust your feedback all the way around. What generally happens when managers use the sandwich method is they start to rely on it as a crutch, and employees pretty quickly distrust any positive feedback they receive because they are waiting for the inevitable shoe to drop. "Uh oh, he's blowing smoke up my ***... what did I do now?"

Anyway, that's all beside the point here. A tangent.