Thoughts on the nature and boundaries of martial arts - split from Training Log

[Tony Dismukes]

Note - this started out as a reply to Chris in the "Training Log" thread, but it ended up being enough of a digression that I thought it should go in its own thread.

Hmm.... to be completely transparent, I wouldn't say that I "insist on very rigid categorisation", more that I would tend to apply accurate descriptions... there's really no "fuzzy boundary" that can be applied, as it's quite a binary status... either an art is Japanese, or it's not.

Yeah... look, to be honest, this is a strawman argument. It's really quite removed from the actual concept itself, which is the cultural, structural, and pedagogical make-up of a Japanese martial art.

we're talking about new arts being created

the reality is that a Japanese art is of Japanese origin... not just geographically, but culturally. And this is devoid of that very cultural grounding.

The problem is that, when such lines are considered "fuzzy", we end up with people confused about what exactly they're doing... and passing down the idea that what they're doing is one thing that it's not.

That, of course, doesn't change the reality... no matter how many people think something is a Japanese art, or how much a system describes itself as such, if it isn't one, it isn't one. Very binary.

I don't have any problem with the definitions you choose to apply. I understand where they're coming from and it certainly helps communication when we understand what definitions are being used.

On the other hand, I will say (based on this and a number of previous conversations), that we have a fundamentally different outlook regarding the meaning of "a martial art."

You (based on this and previous conversations) regard a martial art as a discrete individual thing that exists in and of itself with clear boundaries. It has a founder or founders, it has a specific list of underlying principles, it has a particular curriculum and set of training methods It has a specific context and purpose. It fits into a certain number of binary categories ("Japanese", "Korean", "traditional", "modern") and not into others.

I would argue that martial arts (like much of the rest of the world), are not necessarily confined to sets with such rigid boundaries.

I'll use another analogy and compare the concept of "martial art" to the concept of "species" in biology.

Most laypeople consider a species to be a binary category. An animal is or is not a bald eagle, a grey wolf, a house cat, or whatever. Those who have taken high school biology classes may be familiar with the definition of species as a population where any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring. (For example, horses and donkeys are different species because even though they can interbreed and produce offspring, those offspring are not fertile.)

Biologists, however, are familiar with ring species. A ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations, each of which interbreeds with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" population. In other words, you can have one group of sea gulls (group A, with their own latin taxonomy) which can interbreed with another groups of sea gulls (group B). So groups A and B, by the definition above, are the same species. Group B can interbreed with group C. So B and C must be the same species. Group C can interbreed with group D. So C and D must be the same species. However, it turns out that group A cannot interbreed with group D. So A and D are not the same species. What??!! A and B are the same species. B and C are the same species. C and D are the same species. But A and D are not the same species? What happened to our clear, binary boundaries?

BTW - this also reflects a confusion some people have with the fundamental concept of evolution. Evolution follows the same pattern as we saw for ring species, but across time rather than space. Modern horses might be descended from Eohippus (with intermediate stages such as Mesohippus), however there was no point during those millions of years of evolution where a member of a species gave birth to an offspring which could be considered a different species from its parent. The changes in each generation were miniscule. Species is a continuum, not a binary category. It just happens to be convenient for most day-to-day practical work to treat them as discrete categories.

I regard martial arts in the same way. Just as a "species" does not exist apart from the individual organisms which are lumped into that category, a martial art does not exist as a separate entity from the community of individual people who practice that art. In my opinion, the art is really defined by that community rather than on any official rules handed down by the founder of the art (assuming the art even had a singular founder). And the nature of individuals within that community can make the nature and boundaries of the art to be fuzzier than what you might expect.

Depending on the art, there may be considerable variation in how individuals in that community carry out that practice. Training methods, techniques, concepts, principles, philosophies, cultural rituals, reasons for training, contexts the arts is applied in, can all vary. Sometimes you can find individuals from two "different" arts whose training is much more similar than some other individuals within the same art. This could happen because of convergent evolution and cross-pollination between separate arts. This could happen because the two arts are essentially the same art (by descent), but instructors along the way decided to split off and declare themselves the founders of a new art for political or other reasons. It could be because individuals within the separate arts each decided to follow a certain approach to their development and ended up in a similar place.

We had a discussion a while back where you commented that BJJ as an art is primarily best suited for competing against other BJJ practitioners in tournaments under BJJ rules. There is an element of truth in that when you look at the many schools and individuals out there in the BJJ community who are training specifically for that purpose and have it as their primary goal. However I took issue with the generalization, looking at my own BJJ training as an example. I am mediocre at best in BJJ tournament competition. However my BJJ training also encompasses sparring practitioners of many different arts under many different rulesets. I've used my BJJ in sparring outdoors, in cars, on furniture, with sticks, with knives, with hair pulling, with biting, with all sorts of variables which are not present in BJJ tournaments. I've taught aspects of my BJJ to law enforcement and to pro MMA fighters. I've taught aspects of my BJJ to practitioners of striking arts who just want to know how to safely get back to their feet if they are taken down. (Per @yak sao everything I showed him fit well within the principles of his Wing Tsun.)

So is "my" BJJ best suited for competing against other BJJ practitioners in BJJ tournaments? Not really. Is "my" BJJ a different art from the art trained by the people who are winning BJJ championships but aren't doing the other kinds of training that I do? I suppose you could argue it either way, but I'm inclined to say no. My definition of the art is broad enough to include us all.

Another interesting question is whether I am training the same art as practitioners of Judo, Sambo, Catch Wrestling, Combat Submission Wrestling and other related grappling arts. Technically, the answer is no. My rank doesn't apply to those arts. The terminology is often different. Competition rulesets are different. The overall allocation of training time to different aspects of training is different. However I can (and have) take a class in any of those arts and seamlessly integrate whatever I learn into my BJJ. I can teach a class to practitioners of those arts and they can understand the material and apply it to their own training. Personally I think it's reasonable to regard each of these arts as just different aspects or areas of focus within a larger, art which doesn't have an official name.

 

[Buka]

I don't have any problem with the definitions you choose to apply. I understand where they're coming from and it certainly helps communication when we understand what definitions are being used.

On the other hand, I will say (based on this and a number of previous conversations), that we have a fundamentally different outlook regarding the meaning of "a martial art."

You (based on this and previous conversations) regard a martial art as a discrete individual thing that exists in and of itself with clear boundaries. It has a founder or founders, it has a specific list of underlying principles, it has a particular curriculum and set of training methods It has a specific context and purpose. It fits into a certain number of binary categories ("Japanese", "Korean", "traditional", "modern") and not into others.

I would argue that martial arts (like much of the rest of the world), are not necessarily confined to sets with such rigid boundaries.

I'll use another analogy and compare the concept of "martial art" to the concept of "species" in biology.

Most laypeople consider a species to be a binary category. An animal is or is not a bald eagle, a grey wolf, a house cat, or whatever. Those who have taken high school biology classes may be familiar with the definition of species as a population where any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring. (For example, horses and donkeys are different species because even though they can interbreed and produce offspring, those offspring are not fertile.)

Biologists, however, are familiar with ring species. A ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations, each of which interbreeds with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" population. In other words, you can have one group of sea gulls (group A, with their own latin taxonomy) which can interbreed with another groups of sea gulls (group B). So groups A and B, by the definition above, are the same species. Group B can interbreed with group C. So B and C must be the same species. Group C can interbreed with group D. So C and D must be the same species. However, it turns out that group A cannot interbreed with group D. So A and D are not the same species. What??!! A and B are the same species. B and C are the same species. C and D are the same species. But A and D are not the same species? What happened to our clear, binary boundaries?

BTW - this also reflects a confusion some people have with the fundamental concept of evolution. Evolution follows the same pattern as we saw for ring species, but across time rather than space. Modern horses might be descended from Eohippus (with intermediate stages such as Mesohippus), however there was no point during those millions of years of evolution where a member of a species gave birth to an offspring which could be considered a different species from its parent. The changes in each generation were miniscule. Species is a continuum, not a binary category. It just happens to be convenient for most day-to-day practical work to treat them as discrete categories.

I regard martial arts in the same way. Just as a "species" does not exist apart from the individual organisms which are lumped into that category, a martial art does not exist as a separate entity from the community of individual people who practice that art. In my opinion, the art is really defined by that community rather than on any official rules handed down by the founder of the art (assuming the art even had a singular founder). And the nature of individuals within that community can make the nature and boundaries of the art to be fuzzier than what you might expect.

Depending on the art, there may be considerable variation in how individuals in that community carry out that practice. Training methods, techniques, concepts, principles, philosophies, cultural rituals, reasons for training, contexts the arts is applied in, can all vary. Sometimes you can find individuals from two "different" arts whose training is much more similar than some other individuals within the same art. This could happen because of convergent evolution and cross-pollination between separate arts. This could happen because the two arts are essentially the same art (by descent), but instructors along the way decided to split off and declare themselves the founders of a new art for political or other reasons. It could be because individuals within the separate arts each decided to follow a certain approach to their development and ended up in a similar place.

We had a discussion a while back where you commented that BJJ as an art is primarily best suited for competing against other BJJ practitioners in tournaments under BJJ rules. There is an element of truth in that when you look at the many schools and individuals out there in the BJJ community who are training specifically for that purpose and have it as their primary goal. However I took issue with the generalization, looking at my own BJJ training as an example. I am mediocre at best in BJJ tournament competition. However my BJJ training also encompasses sparring practitioners of many different arts under many different rulesets. I've used my BJJ in sparring outdoors, in cars, on furniture, with sticks, with knives, with hair pulling, with biting, with all sorts of variables which are not present in BJJ tournaments. I've taught aspects of my BJJ to law enforcement and to pro MMA fighters. I've taught aspects of my BJJ to practitioners of striking arts who just want to know how to safely get back to their feet if they are taken down. (Per @yak sao everything I showed him fit well within the principles of his Wing Tsun.)

So is "my" BJJ best suited for competing against other BJJ practitioners in BJJ tournaments? Not really. Is "my" BJJ a different art from the art trained by the people who are winning BJJ championships but aren't doing the other kinds of training that I do? I suppose you could argue it either way, but I'm inclined to say no. My definition of the art is broad enough to include us all.

Another interesting question is whether I am training the same art as practitioners of Judo, Sambo, Catch Wrestling, Combat Submission Wrestling and other related grappling arts. Technically, the answer is no. My rank doesn't apply to those arts. The terminology is often different. Competition rulesets are different. The overall allocation of training time to different aspects of training is different. However I can (and have) take a class in any of those arts and seamlessly integrate whatever I learn into my BJJ. I can teach a class to practitioners of those arts and they can understand the material and apply it to their own training. Personally I think it's reasonable to regard each of these arts as just different aspects or areas of focus within a larger, art which doesn't have an official name.

Hmmm ... this comment kind of ended up as a massive digression. I wonder if I should pull it out into a separate thread, what do you think?

Tell you one thing, if you guys put this in a separate thread, I for one, will read every word from the both of you.

 

[drop bear]

This is BJJ in Tokyo.

Work that one out.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey @Tony,

This is just a place-holder so I can come back and go through this in detail....

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Note - this started out as a reply to Chris in the "Training Log" thread, but it ended up being enough of a digression that I thought it should go in its own thread.













I don't have any problem with the definitions you choose to apply. I understand where they're coming from and it certainly helps communication when we understand what definitions are being used.

On the other hand, I will say (based on this and a number of previous conversations), that we have a fundamentally different outlook regarding the meaning of "a martial art."

You (based on this and previous conversations) regard a martial art as a discrete individual thing that exists in and of itself with clear boundaries. It has a founder or founders, it has a specific list of underlying principles, it has a particular curriculum and set of training methods It has a specific context and purpose. It fits into a certain number of binary categories ("Japanese", "Korean", "traditional", "modern") and not into others.

I would argue that martial arts (like much of the rest of the world), are not necessarily confined to sets with such rigid boundaries.

I'll use another analogy and compare the concept of "martial art" to the concept of "species" in biology.

Most laypeople consider a species to be a binary category. An animal is or is not a bald eagle, a grey wolf, a house cat, or whatever. Those who have taken high school biology classes may be familiar with the definition of species as a population where any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring. (For example, horses and donkeys are different species because even though they can interbreed and produce offspring, those offspring are not fertile.)

Biologists, however, are familiar with ring species. A ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations, each of which interbreeds with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" population. In other words, you can have one group of sea gulls (group A, with their own latin taxonomy) which can interbreed with another groups of sea gulls (group B). So groups A and B, by the definition above, are the same species. Group B can interbreed with group C. So B and C must be the same species. Group C can interbreed with group D. So C and D must be the same species. However, it turns out that group A cannot interbreed with group D. So A and D are not the same species. What??!! A and B are the same species. B and C are the same species. C and D are the same species. But A and D are not the same species? What happened to our clear, binary boundaries?

BTW - this also reflects a confusion some people have with the fundamental concept of evolution. Evolution follows the same pattern as we saw for ring species, but across time rather than space. Modern horses might be descended from Eohippus (with intermediate stages such as Mesohippus), however there was no point during those millions of years of evolution where a member of a species gave birth to an offspring which could be considered a different species from its parent. The changes in each generation were miniscule. Species is a continuum, not a binary category. It just happens to be convenient for most day-to-day practical work to treat them as discrete categories.

I regard martial arts in the same way. Just as a "species" does not exist apart from the individual organisms which are lumped into that category, a martial art does not exist as a separate entity from the community of individual people who practice that art. In my opinion, the art is really defined by that community rather than on any official rules handed down by the founder of the art (assuming the art even had a singular founder). And the nature of individuals within that community can make the nature and boundaries of the art to be fuzzier than what you might expect.

Depending on the art, there may be considerable variation in how individuals in that community carry out that practice. Training methods, techniques, concepts, principles, philosophies, cultural rituals, reasons for training, contexts the arts is applied in, can all vary. Sometimes you can find individuals from two "different" arts whose training is much more similar than some other individuals within the same art. This could happen because of convergent evolution and cross-pollination between separate arts. This could happen because the two arts are essentially the same art (by descent), but instructors along the way decided to split off and declare themselves the founders of a new art for political or other reasons. It could be because individuals within the separate arts each decided to follow a certain approach to their development and ended up in a similar place.

We had a discussion a while back where you commented that BJJ as an art is primarily best suited for competing against other BJJ practitioners in tournaments under BJJ rules. There is an element of truth in that when you look at the many schools and individuals out there in the BJJ community who are training specifically for that purpose and have it as their primary goal. However I took issue with the generalization, looking at my own BJJ training as an example. I am mediocre at best in BJJ tournament competition. However my BJJ training also encompasses sparring practitioners of many different arts under many different rulesets. I've used my BJJ in sparring outdoors, in cars, on furniture, with sticks, with knives, with hair pulling, with biting, with all sorts of variables which are not present in BJJ tournaments. I've taught aspects of my BJJ to law enforcement and to pro MMA fighters. I've taught aspects of my BJJ to practitioners of striking arts who just want to know how to safely get back to their feet if they are taken down. (Per @yak sao everything I showed him fit well within the principles of his Wing Tsun.)

So is "my" BJJ best suited for competing against other BJJ practitioners in BJJ tournaments? Not really. Is "my" BJJ a different art from the art trained by the people who are winning BJJ championships but aren't doing the other kinds of training that I do? I suppose you could argue it either way, but I'm inclined to say no. My definition of the art is broad enough to include us all.

Another interesting question is whether I am training the same art as practitioners of Judo, Sambo, Catch Wrestling, Combat Submission Wrestling and other related grappling arts. Technically, the answer is no. My rank doesn't apply to those arts. The terminology is often different. Competition rulesets are different. The overall allocation of training time to different aspects of training is different. However I can (and have) take a class in any of those arts and seamlessly integrate whatever I learn into my BJJ. I can teach a class to practitioners of those arts and they can understand the material and apply it to their own training. Personally I think it's reasonable to regard each of these arts as just different aspects or areas of focus within a larger, art which doesn't have an official name.

A few thoughts, in no particular order.

The concept that there is a "right" to this is needlessly binary. As you say, different people (and groups) will use the terms differently. I think all that matters in the end is that those using the terms understand each other. So when I say something is a Japanese art and those around me understand I mean it's of Japanese derivation, that's effective communication. If I'm in a group where that usage becomes confusing, I'd probably switch to the therm "Japanese-derived" or some such, because communication is what's important.

I think the same is true of where the boundaries of an art exist. Just as it's possible to argue what you do isn't precisely the same art as competition BJJ (or is the same umbrella art as Sambo, etc.), it's possible to argue what I do is no longer NGA. And I don't have an argument with those who say it isn't. As long as there's some clear principle behind their view, I'm okay with it. What I think happens is that most of us come at the question from our specific background. My discussions with Koryu folk suggest that they tend to see more defined borders around arts than most "modern TMA" (those who have some distinct traditions in their art, but not as deep as koryu and koryu-like groups) folks, who see clearer borders than most "modern" (those without much tradition at all) folks.

So Chris sees much more defined borders than I do. I'm okay with that. What I'm not okay with is his attempt to be the gatekeeper who gets to define what we all believe.

 

[drop bear]

A few thoughts, in no particular order.

The concept that there is a "right" to this is needlessly binary. As you say, different people (and groups) will use the terms differently. I think all that matters in the end is that those using the terms understand each other. So when I say something is a Japanese art and those around me understand I mean it's of Japanese derivation, that's effective communication. If I'm in a group where that usage becomes confusing, I'd probably switch to the therm "Japanese-derived" or some such, because communication is what's important.

I think the same is true of where the boundaries of an art exist. Just as it's possible to argue what you do isn't precisely the same art as competition BJJ (or is the same umbrella art as Sambo, etc.), it's possible to argue what I do is no longer NGA. And I don't have an argument with those who say it isn't. As long as there's some clear principle behind their view, I'm okay with it. What I think happens is that most of us come at the question from our specific background. My discussions with Koryu folk suggest that they tend to see more defined borders around arts than most "modern TMA" (those who have some distinct traditions in their art, but not as deep as koryu and koryu-like groups) folks, who see clearer borders than most "modern" (those without much tradition at all) folks.

So Chris sees much more defined borders than I do. I'm okay with that. What I'm not okay with is his attempt to be the gatekeeper who gets to define what we all believe.

Yeah. I mean I might go out and participate in my culture. Which in Melbourne for example would be having a coffee in a cafe.

Which is not in any way traditionally Australian. Or even traditionally white Australian. We imported that from another culture.

But now you go to Melbourne to do this cultural activity.

 

[jobo]

Yeah. I mean I might go out and participate in my culture. Which in Melbourne for example would be having a coffee in a cafe.

Which is not in any way traditionally Australian. Or even traditionally white Australian. We imported that from another culture.

But now you go to Melbourne to do this cultural activity.

but you imported very nearly everything from another culture,

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but you imported very nearly everything from another culture,

Yes. And at some point those imported things become part of the culture.

 

[drop bear]

but you imported very nearly everything from another culture,

Yeah pretty much.

 

[Steve]

This reminds me of the thread where I was told that I was spelling jiu jitsu incorrectly.

 

[isshinryuronin]

This reminds me of the thread where I was told that I was spelling jiu jitsu incorrectly.

Regarding the art of BJJ without the B - It's all very simple. The phonetic Japanese writing system is hiragana. Don't know how (or care to take the time now to figure it out) to convert it for print into this post. But it is written with the symbol for "shi," and adding a couple of dots (the diacritic called dakuten) to it turns it into "ji". The next character is "yu". That would make the first word "ji-yu" (two syllables.) Except if the "yu" character is written smaller. Then the two sounds are combined into a glide, rendering it "jyu," phonetically (one syllable.) Now, to get the sound "juu", you would take the characters for "jyu" and add the one for "u." Got it?????? !!!!

The Japanese have no problem with this, as the art in question (BJJ without the B......Yes, I am evading going on record as to the correct English spelling. Clever, huh?) would be written in kanji (Chinese style ideographic writing) and they would know from other Japanese exactly how to pronounce it, and thus, spell it in hiragana, which could, most of the time, then be converted into English.

I am so happy to have cleared this all up. If, by some slight chance, you are still confused, have a Japanese language expert weigh in. I've just got two years of formal college Japanese study and it ain't an easy language. Luckily, I study karate and everybody knows how to spell that!

 

[jobo]

Yes. And at some point those imported things become part of the culture.

at what point?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

at what point?

No idea. There's certainly no hard boundary on that (wait, did we just get back to the point of the thread???).

 

[jobo]

No idea. There's certainly no hard boundary on that (wait, did we just get back to the point of the thread???).

of course there is no hard point, cultures change constantly and usually by a fairly uniform amount excepting calamitous events

the culture that created Japanese ma a century ago is no more, they have no more relevance to modern Japanese culture than they do to American culture, which has rather swamped Japanese culture

 

[Steve]

Regarding the art of BJJ without the B - It's all very simple. The phonetic Japanese writing system is hiragana. Don't know how (or care to take the time now to figure it out) to convert it for print into this post. But it is written with the symbol for "shi," and adding a couple of dots (the diacritic called dakuten) to it turns it into "ji". The next character is "yu". That would make the first word "ji-yu" (two syllables.) Except if the "yu" character is written smaller. Then the two sounds are combined into a glide, rendering it "jyu," phonetically (one syllable.) Now, to get the sound "juu", you would take the characters for "jyu" and add the one for "u." Got it?????? !!!!

The Japanese have no problem with this, as the art in question (BJJ without the B......Yes, I am evading going on record as to the correct English spelling. Clever, huh?) would be written in kanji (Chinese style ideographic writing) and they would know from other Japanese exactly how to pronounce it, and thus, spell it in hiragana, which could, most of the time, then be converted into English.

I am so happy to have cleared this all up. If, by some slight chance, you are still confused, have a Japanese language expert weigh in. I've just got two years of formal college Japanese study and it ain't an easy language. Luckily, I study karate and everybody knows how to spell that!

But I don't speak Japanese. So, when I use the term, I'm speaking English.

 

[Steve]

More to the topic, I think if you are in Japan and doing something (anything), by definition you're doing something that is Japanese. Once you import that activity to another place, it is no longer Japanese; though it may be more or less authentic to its Japanese roots. So, regardless of how authentic one's aikido may be, if you're doing it in Houston, Texas, it is not Japanese. It's American.

 

[dvcochran]

Tony, that was very well said, and I think the term "BJJ" could have been replaced with any other style in context. Very nail on the head.

The A,B,C,D analogy (which is awesome) left this impression on me: A & D would still have comparative similarities. Four legs, similar body type, two eyes, etc... In the end the similarities would outweigh the differences, although the difference (no reproduction) is a huge one.
You very well explain how there is no getting away from evolution. You change or you die out. We are seeing this so much in the MA world. I fully understand how alarming the mixing of styles and convergence can be to someone very steeped in tradition and history. I feel the reality of this situation is that said person has to admit they have become a historian. Doggedly holding onto to certain teachings and trying to pass them down as 'effective' is a misrepresentation at the very least. Stimulates much of the 'crap' we see people teaching.

Another thing that jumped out was that all styles are rules or terminology bound. A middle punch? In every style. A middle block? In every style. In that regard it is up to the style to identify their own subtle difference in the movement. But in the gross viewpoint so many things have always overlapped, however to think of it that way is distasteful to some. Downright heretic to others.
I hope we are all passionate about our style or school or gym, whether it has a specific name on it or not. Just work your craft, whatever name it has.

All I know for certain is that people who are teaching in a commercial nature better learn and be willing to adapt. This thing grossly called Martial Arts is changing and condensing. There will be species that die out and others that are consumed by another style or become obsolete (A, D result). The latter is the most important to recognize to me.

All that said, it is important to maintain some degree of identity, it for descriptive purposes if nothing else.

 

[jobo]

More to the topic, I think if you are in Japan and doing something (anything), by definition you're doing something that is Japanese. Once you import that activity to another place, it is no longer Japanese; though it may be more or less authentic to its Japanese roots. So, regardless of how authentic one's aikido may be, if you're doing it in Houston, Texas, it is not Japanese. It's American.

so if an American football team visited the uk that would make it British football and it reverts back on the plane back to Huston ?

 

[jobo]

Tony, that was very well said, and I think the term "BJJ" could have been replaced with any other style in context. Very nail on the head.

The A,B,C,D analogy (which is awesome) left this impression on me: A & D would still have comparative similarities. Four legs, similar body type, two eyes, etc... In the end the similarities would outweigh the differences, although the difference (no reproduction) is a huge one.
You very well explain how there is no getting away from evolution. You change or you die out. We are seeing this so much in the MA world. I fully understand how alarming the mixing of styles and convergence can be to someone very steeped in tradition and history. I feel the reality of this situation is that said person has to admit they have become a historian. Doggedly holding onto to certain teachings and trying to pass them down as 'effective' is a misrepresentation at the very least. Stimulates much of the 'crap' we see people teaching.

Another thing that jumped out was that all styles are rules or terminology bound. A middle punch? In every style. A middle block? In every style. In that regard it is up to the style to identify their own subtle difference in the movement. But in the gross viewpoint so many things have always overlapped, however to think of it that way is distasteful to some. Downright heretic to others.
I hope we are all passionate about our style or school or gym, whether it has a specific name on it or not. Just work your craft, whatever name it has.

All I know for certain is that people who are teaching in a commercial nature better learn and be willing to adapt. This thing grossly called Martial Arts is changing and condensing. There will be species that die out and others that are consumed by another style or become obsolete (A, D result). The latter is the most important to recognize to me.

All that said, it is important to maintain some degree of identity, it for descriptive purposes if nothing else.

there are a number of species that haven't changed notably for millions of years, though there have been genetic abnormalities non of there offered an advantage, so evolve or die only applies if the environment changes sufficiently to require it

 

[Steve]

so if an American football team visited the uk that would make it British football and it reverts back on the plane back to Huston ?

I think if two American football teams that both train in America and generally compete in America, play a game in the UK, it's still American. Once you guys start your own league with your own players, and your own teams, it becomes British, even if the coach is an American.