Why most Styles SUCK!

[nbcdecon]

Lets look at the break down of styles most styles are great because they give an ethnic identifcation or national pride.
Most schools in most shopping centers across America preach about how great my style is. ( EGO)
I have started to just grasp hold of all the information that was handed to me as a young pup and now I see most of the Martial artists in this world practice thier arts and not truly study their arts.
The reason I am posting this is the other day I had another martial artist tell me that a certain skill is useless in a street fight. I raised my eyebrows in Disbelief and said you should find a place for this move like the garbage can.
We as martial artist show more intrest in our Arts and training concepts rather than studing a Style. Name calling is all we tend to do when we train a style and not a skill. Most of all my mother is my foremost teacher on name callling and she told me not to do that one when I was young.

 

[theneuhauser]

Name calling is all we tend to do when we train a style and not a skill.

speak for yourself, bud.

Most schools in most shopping centers across America preach about how great my style is. ( EGO)

but dont make generalizations like that about the entire American MA community

most of the Martial artists in this world practice thier arts and not truly study their arts.

and dont think for a second that you can represent this entire planet with a simple blanket statement.

 

[arnisador]

I always emphasize that one must truly study the martial arts, and I agree that there are too many who don't, unfortunately.

I don't believe that all styles are created equal. Some are better--for some people, for some circumstances, etc. While how you train makes a huge difference, some styles are superior, at least for certain body types and personalities and such--and some styles, in my opinion, do indeed suck. Most styles however are good for the right person and the right type of likely attack.

 

[nbcdecon]

I guess I touched on an area that should have been mentioned awhile ago. This wasn't meant to be a blanket statement just sharing personal observations from many schools in the states and abroad that I have visited. Some schools train a concept like ie: Science
Other Schools train a motion like ie: Movement, no self expression
I would like to confirm thier are good instructors in America infact I think some of the best are state side. These instructors didn't become known because they are bland and repeating the same information but giving a diffrent perspective on martial arts and skills.

 

[theneuhauser]

defenitely agree with you there. it seems like the mark of a great teacher is to pass down the exact knowledge of the originator, otherwise, we would never get the intended purpose as to why it was developed in the first place.
and the mark of a really great teacher is to pass that knowledge down verbatim, and at the same time adding new angles, methods and practice in order to avoid aging the system into antiquity.

 

[tonbo]

.....that most styles suck. I think that a lot of martial arts are *stuck*.

There are a lot of traditional martial arts that are *so* rooted in tradition that they don't evolve, and don't question what they do. Most martial arts were developed eons ago, under very different circumstances, and were developed to work under the "current" conditions of the times.

However, now we are no longer in those times and situations, and some of the aspects of those arts may need to be adapted. In many cases, there is an overemphasis on tradition, and the art is presented as it always was. What may have worked 1000 years ago in ancient Japan may not work the same today.

Those that don't have enough vision to make the art applicable to the modern society could be doomed to make mistakes, both for themselves and their students (in an actual society).....

Not all arts are bad. Just the way they are applied can be bad. However, again.....part of that is the instructor's job, and part of it is the student's job--to find out what will and won't work, and to go *beyond* the tradition alone.

Peace--

 

[theneuhauser]

tonbo, what was really developed one thousand years ago in ancient japan? zen maybe-nothing wrong with it's applications today. besides sword drawing and other weapons not being used anymore, what really has changed so much about the world today?
most martial arts systems have been changed with every generation to boot. what we call traditional arts are usually less than a couple centuries old.

i submit that the only true drastic difference is the attitude and lifestyle of the people. we cant spend as much time learning(practicing) that people did centuries ago. and most of us have less patience when it comes to attaining results.
but havent the arts always given us simple, easy to learn techniques as well as the more advanced?

nowadays we see new and improved stuff like DCM and MMA, even JKD, and we call that modern, some day it will be traditional, regardless of their philosophies of ever-adaptiveness.
and thats exactly how all martial arts came about, shaolin blossomed into family styles and animal styles, japan adapted from china, and other countries created systems that continued to evolve into newer systems.

and i guarantee that most of those guys(the style originators) stood up in front of the public (just like bruce lee and ed parker and so many others) and said "this style is effective for the modern world, better than the traditional".

sorry to run on there:soapbox:

i admit, that i may be missing something vital, but this is how i see it. old traditional systems are not antiquated. they are still very valid today. or maybe i am completely off base.

 

[arnisador]

What's DCM?

 

[Kempojujutsu]

You see some schools practicing horse stands while one hand is chamber at the sideand the other punches. But if you act this way out on the street, your asking for a butt whooping.
Bob :asian:

 

[theneuhauser]

You see some schools practicing horse stands while one hand is chamber at the sideand the other punches. But if you act this way out on the street, your asking for a butt whooping

ive practiced horse riding stance at nearly every school ive attended, and i guarantee that you will never see me in a full horse on the street, come on now, be realistic. those stances are designed for one thing, practice.
if you want to know the specific reasons for learning horse stances and other "ineffective" practices i suggest that you start a new string. but i will also go out on a limb here and guess that 1000 years ago, people didnt actually fight on the street that way either.
instructors boast about their own techniques and dismiss centuries' old basic training techniques like horse stances, because it makes them sound better. not because they know better.
i would still love an answer to my previous question, what is so different about today's world (besides swords have been replaced with guns) that makes only the newest and greatest styles appropriate?

 

[arnisador]

I used the horse stance in self-defense once--the person was kicking at me and I was backing up, cautiously, with my side to him. It was a stable stance that exposed me to little danger as he was kicking toward my midsection which was deceptively far away and afforded me the ability to make strong blocks. I blocked three consecutive kicks from it before changing stances.

 

[theneuhauser]

arnisador you are the voice of reason,

and i dont know why a threw DCM out there but i was just typin' away. it stands for dynamic combat method and its another one of those hybrid martial arts thats springing up all over. i think the instructor that created it was one richard ryan. dont know much about it, or him.



just found a link for you http://www.2reality.com/index.htm


now thats practical!

 

[Matt Stone]

You see some schools practicing horse stands while one hand is chamber at the sideand the other punches. But if you act this way out on the street, your asking for a butt whooping.

And if you genuinely think, either as a student of a system or as an observer of a system, that that is how you are meant to apply the techniques you have learned, or, worse yet, if you are a teacher that teaches your students that that is how they are meant to apply the techniques you are presenting them, then you deserve the "butt whooping."

I think NBCDECON is on the right track with this... It is one thing to go to class a few times a week, mimicking the instructor's movements, and going home with a sense of having participated in some ancient method of ritual combat. It is another thing entirely, and what separates "real" martial arts lunatics from the rest of the herd, to spend the moments of your free time thinking about not only the "how" but the "why" and "when" of your training as well... Real examination and scrutinization of your style will confirm what Arnisador alluded to - some styles really ARE better than others, but not always for every person studying them. And some styles really DO suck. Sorry, but that's the universe for you.

Just my devalued 2 yen...

:samurai: :tank: :yinyang:

 

[theneuhauser]

- some styles really ARE better than others, but not always for every person studying them. And some styles really DO suck.

yes, there is a speck of truth there, however i hold fast to the idea that some people are just better than others.
if you are speaking strictly from a combat perspective, yiliquan, than i believe that somebody who has never trained before but is the fastest, most explosive, most aggressive bloke on the block most likely will defeat your average hard working black belt bar none, why, because some people are better than others. some are natural fighters and some are natural lovers, everyone has their own individual talents as well as inherent flaws. i could never be a mathematician, or write a brilliant novel, doesnt matter how much i practice, but i can do other things very well.
do you see what im saying?
so i would have to innovate a l little on what you and arnisador are saying, some styles may facilitate faster learning of the methods they teach (wing chun is a perfect old school example), but that does not make them better in the end. if they were all just different old rusty blades in a toolshed, some may have more rust, and begin slightly more dull, than the other, but with time, anyone of those blades can become the most sharp, and the person that most attentively and carefully sharpens their own, will reap the greatest reward.
so i conclude that it's the person, not the artform that makes the difference. wait, i said that before!

 

[Matt Stone]

Were you to have quoted more of my post (which is really unnecessary in any case, given that it is right there above yours :shrug, you would notice that I already qualified what you said, though in a slightly different and perhaps less efficient manner, was that styles can and do suck, no matter how bad their adherents want to believe they don't.

:argue:

I never commented on individual fighters (at least not here in this thread). You can take a superior individual, train him in a sh*t style, and he will still be a better fighter than a couch potato muffin boy in the greatest, deadliest art ever devised (that I am sure couch potato muffin boy would train in if it didn't interfere with his viewing the latest episode of Ultraman while eating Ho-Ho's and Twinkies). But, if all people really were created equal (in principle we are, but in reality we aren't - fact of life, bottom line; I wish I was created as equally as Shaq, or some other incredible athlete, but in reality I'm not), then you could debate style vs. style with some degree of legitimacy.

Anyway.

As for styles being better, maybe I should say "more complete" or "more fully thought out." Some styles train certain skill sets to an extreme, but ignore others. Some styles make use of antiquated techniques, weapons, costumes, etc., and ignore the modern innovations that have made such antiquated items obsolete. Some styles are nothing more than hype or fraud. I think BJJ is very effective, but I have yet to see a truly definitive answer to the multiple attacker scenario from a BJJist. I think that my own system is very effective, but I have found many things through training both with and under others that could use examination.

I think we both agree, we are just using too many words to explain it... Next time I will post with telepathic attachments, thus allowing for perfect and harmonious understanding... :lol:

 

[sweeper]

I duno.. I think there are alot of problems in the MA world.. one is there is very little use for MA in most people's lives (who live in the US) frankly if you want to deffend yourself get a weapon and don't put yourself in danger.. if you don't want to deffend yourself and you are just looking for a sport of some kinf of athletic enjoyment than whatever.. as long as you don't seriously hur tyourself it doesn't matter what you practice..

now if you are in that minority group that trains for real deffence, I think you have to properly analyse the situation, you most certainly can not just do what your teacher does because your teacher probably doesn't have all the answers, and odds are his/her teacher didn't even have access to some of the informaation that we have today that concerns MA. There are very few arts that take a true scientific aproach to fighting.. there are alot that refference science to support their view.. but not many that truely look for the best way to solve a given problem given all available information. That I think is the problem, people go barking up the wrong tree and waste time doing something that is not the most efficient thing you can do.

In retrosepect I don't think I made myself clear... oh well.. maybe I'll try again latter

 

[theneuhauser]

we may be getting away from a very important aspect of the discussion. martial arts are not just about fighting, people. what about fitness, health, spiritual power? everyone goes off on these discussions debating about who can beat up who. but its not about that.
a school that emphasizes one thing will invariably be taking away from the other. so if i spend 95% of my time practicing chi kung, than i will obviously not be learning everything there is to know about stick fighting, however, i will be in the best school in the world for chi development.

this is the last time ill ask it: what is so different about the world today?

 

[sweeper]

sorry forgot about that question.. the world today? environmental change, diffrent weapons, difrrent clothing and footwear (depending on the martial arts origins). and attackers using diffrent fighting styles/tactics.

most fights come about in a city environment, cities today are alot diffrent than cities 200 years ago.

over I don't think there is much diffrent in any one catagory but over all there are changes, perhaps not enough to support an argument that simply because an art is old it's not effectiveanymore, however probably enough to show that some arts have become less usefull due to environmental change.

I think the biggest change is the availability of statistical and scientific information.. 200 years ago you couldn't get a report saying the most common forms of fights and the most common tactics. Another big change would be fighting style. most fighters you run into arent' going to fight in an "easternstyle" rather they are going to have some kinda of boxing/wrestling type of combination with maybe some low soccer kicks in there.. for various reasons it's kinda un common to find a TKD master that wants to mug you .

social diffrences might be there also.. if someone wants to attack you with something like a knife, they are probably gona get realy close to you before letting you see it, and because of sociaty today if someone walks up to you with a smile on ther face you may not expect a fight so you may not back away.

Legal system is somewhat diffrent, as are security systems.. you can be caught on video beating someone up on the street than get thrown in jail.. You legaly aren't supposed to resond to a dangerious situation with any more than the force required to protect yourself/others, since this is subjective to a person/people that ween't preasant at the time of the fight there could be some serious reperations for say, breaking someone's arm that threw a punch at you.

Fighting could also be diffrent because of weapons, if you beat someone up there's nothing stoping them from going to get a gun than killing you.. just as an example (I don't know how common that kind of thing is) but there is always the danger that someone might draw a weapon like a knife in the course of a fist fight, and if you are in an environment that it's difficult to manuever in, like a bar for example than that could be realy bad (compared to on the street where you can always run away).

You are going to see a fundamental diffrence in any art where you don't wear everyday cloths to practicein.. for example when I go to my JKD class I wear swets, normaly I wear comewhat baggy pants but the swets offer much less resistance to movement than any other kind of clothing I would wear, so obviously in a fight outside of class I'm going to be slower due to the resistance of clothing.. this may not seem like much but it will deffenatly affect your ability to fight.. simularly if I were to practice without shoes on, my style of delivering kicks would change and if my opponant didn't have shoes on my awareness of some attacks would be lowered.

Over all I would say the changes that would alter fighting for self deffence the most are
1: your opponants fighting style.
2: your environment, how fights will start, how you can avoid them, legal reprocutions as well as weapons and weapons tactics.
3: the availability of scientific information, and the ability to analise many fighting styles/systems and compare them.

there is nothing that would specificly invalidate any particular fighting style, but anytime your environment changes your optimal fighting system/style will have to change.. I think today you have to do alot more with alot less.. somecases you have to be able to deffend against mulltipal attackers posably using weapons without the advantage of a weapon(dpending the circumstances) and you probably cant dedicate much time per-day to studying martial arts (relative to someone 200 years ago).

 

[Rainman]

Originally posted by nbcdecon

Lets look at the break down of styles most styles are great because they give an ethnic identifcation or national pride.
Most schools in most shopping centers across America preach about how great my style is. ( EGO)
I have started to just grasp hold of all the information that was handed to me as a young pup and now I see most of the Martial artists in this world practice thier arts and not truly study their arts.
The reason I am posting this is the other day I had another martial artist tell me that a certain skill is useless in a street fight. I raised my eyebrows in Disbelief and said you should find a place for this move like the garbage can.
We as martial artist show more intrest in our Arts and training concepts rather than studing a Style. Name calling is all we tend to do when we train a style and not a skill. Most of all my mother is my foremost teacher on name callling and she told me not to do that one when I was young.

Most "styles" don't suck- it is the teaching of a particular system that may be bad... meaning the instructor. There has to be some logic based in a debate about movements otherwise it is time to go elsewhere. Can't say I totally disagree :idunno: Some people are bad some people are good- some are just pyscho.

 

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by nbcdecon


Most schools in most shopping centers across America preach about how great my style is. ( EGO)

Ego and economics.

Originally posted by nbcdecon


The reason I am posting this is the other day I had another martial artist tell me that a certain skill is useless in a street fight. I raised my eyebrows in Disbelief and said you should find a place for this move like the garbage can.

Even a #2 pencil can be useful in a fight.
My reason for saying that is anything can be of use if you know what you are doing and have some imagination.
It's not the art but the person.