I'm tired of styles.

[Ironbear24]

I see martial arts as techniques, and individuals applying them. The fact is we all have two legs and two hands, we all have the same relative area of a center if gravity. Much of these styles overlap so much it seems ridiculous to even fret and worry about someone's "style."

Or which style to practice, what matters or is not what you are practicing (within reason) but how you are practicing it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't think most martial artists get too wrapped up worrying about styles. Most of us like what we do pretty well (or we wouldn't do it), and look around and see a lot of other stuff that looks pretty cool, too. If I wanted to go back to being a student only (not teaching), I probably wouldn't go back to NGA, simply because it's pretty interesting to learn new stuff, and there plenty of styles that intrigue me. Styles are really just ways of identifying (loosely, in some cases) the body of techniques and how they are approached, and in some cases the culture of the community of practitioners. Some folks make it more than that in their view of the arts, but I don't think it is any more than that.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I see martial arts as techniques, ...

The main difference between MA styles is "strategy (set up)". For example, the

- WC emphasizes on Tan Da (inside out block and straight punch).
- Long fist emphasizes on groin kick, face punch.
- Preying mantis emphasizes on Gou Lo Cha Shou (wrist block, elbow block, straight punch).
- ...

Here is the PM "wrist block, elbow block, straight punch". Do all MA styles use this strategy? I don't think so. If you don't train the PM system, you may not train this strategy at all.

 

[drop bear]

I pay a guy to teach me martial arts because he has put together a style better than I could have.

Just like I would pay a guy to teach me anything.

Now if he didn't have a clue what he was doing I am not sure if it would be worth the effort.

The issue I still have with style vs style isn't that there are a bunch of different but relatively successful methods.

It is that anything can be considered a style. Works, doesn't work. Who cares?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

This Chinese wrestling "tearing - grip fight" technique is not commonly used in Judo.

This Chinese wrestling "circle running" strategy is also not commonly used in Judo.

 

[Martial D]

I see martial arts as techniques, and individuals applying them. The fact is we all have two legs and two hands, we all have the same relative area of a center if gravity. Much of these styles overlap so much it seems ridiculous to even fret and worry about someone's "style."

Or which style to practice, what matters or is not what you are practicing (within reason) but how you are practicing it.

Take what works and discard the rest.

Unless, of course, it is the culture and tradition you are into as opposed to practical application; and there's really nothing wrong with that either.

 

[Ironbear24]

I pay a guy to teach me martial arts because he has put together a style better than I could have.

Just like I would pay a guy to teach me anything.

Now if he didn't have a clue what he was doing I am not sure if it would be worth the effort.

The issue I still have with style vs style isn't that there are a bunch of different but relatively successful methods.

It is that anything can be considered a style. Works, doesn't work. Who cares?

I feel the exact same way, as Kung Fu wang pointed out it's about strategies too that define and shape styles, but even I feel like that just reaffirms how I approach this. People will apply said strategy different, for example me and Jules are doing Judo, Jules likes to foot sweep alot and favors those. He seeks out and creates openings to use a variety of foot sweep techniques.

Then there is me also doing Judo who favors hip throws, and hip techniques so I create and exploit any chances to do those techniques. We are both doing the same art but different people apply knowledge differently.

 

[Ironbear24]

Take what works and discard the rest.

Unless, of course, it is the culture and tradition you are into as opposed to practical application; and there's really nothing wrong with that either.

I'm more focused on the application of martial arts but the mysticism and history behind many of them are interesting.

 

[JR 137]

Take what works and discard the rest.

I’ve heard that a ton of times, and the more I hear it the more I disagree with it. I get it, and in a true SD situation or competition, you should absolutely stick with what works for you unless you absolutely have to do something else.

But the notion of discard it if it doesn’t work is flawed. There’s been techniques that I didn’t think would ever work. My previous school taught lot of things my current school does. There were things I didn’t think worked until my current teacher made simple corrections. Timing, distancing, footwork, angles, and hand placement are all things that’ll easily make or break a technique. Get all of those things down, and the useless technique becomes practical and effective. This isn’t just striking; grappling is full of this too. I couldn’t do a fireman’s carry in wrestling to save my life for quite some time. Practiced it every day. Had I not seen it done in actual competition, I’d think it was a worthless technique to discard. Somehow something just clicked years later and I could reliably throw it.

Of course there’s some extremely idiotic techniques out there; I’m not talking about that stuff.

 

[Martial D]

I'm more focused on the application of martial arts but the mysticism and history behind many of them are interesting.

I'm right with you there. It's always about combat first for me, but I think the traditional styles and forms and katas etc are really cool to watch.

 

[Martial D]

I’ve heard that a ton of times, and the more I hear it the more I disagree with it. I get it, and in a true SD situation or competition, you should absolutely stick with what works for you unless you absolutely have to do something else.

But the notion of discard it if it doesn’t work is flawed. There’s been techniques that I didn’t think would ever work. My previous school taught lot of things my current school does. There were things I didn’t think worked until my current teacher made simple corrections. Timing, distancing, footwork, angles, and hand placement are all things that’ll easily make or break a technique. Get all of those things down, and the useless technique becomes practical and effective. This isn’t just striking; grappling is full of this too. I couldn’t do a fireman’s carry in wrestling to save my life for quite some time. Practiced it every day. Had I not seen it done in actual competition, I’d think it was a worthless technique to discard. Somehow something just clicked years later and I could reliably throw it.

Of course there’s some extremely idiotic techniques out there; I’m not talking about that stuff.

I actually agree with you to a point...

Nothing should be discarded until you understand how it works, else how can you judge? On the other hand once you understand how actual combat works, and more importantly your own body, range of motion, body type, and the strengths and weaknesses entailed in the previous, you can get a feel of what works and what doesn't.

A 300 pound body builder probably shouldn't be throwing a lot of fancy kicks that rely on speed, where a 130 pound lightning bolt shouldn't really rely on the belly to belly suplex or other overpowering movements.

 

[Danny T]

System = Is an organized and arranged orderly fashion, philosophy, and methodology using a set of correlated principles, facts, and concepts working toward a result.
Style = Individual’s unique characteristics, usually revealed through performance.

I think the human walking is an excellent example to understand system & style. The human body, the general method the modern human goes about walking = System.
The unique manner a particular individual actually performs the act of walking = Style.

 

[jobo]

I actually agree with you to a point...

Nothing should be discarded until you understand how it works, else how can you judge? On the other hand once you understand how actual combat works, and more importantly your own body, range of motion, body type, and the strengths and weaknesses entailed in the previous, you can get a feel of what works and what doesn't.

A 300 pound body builder probably shouldn't be throwing a lot of fancy kicks that rely on speed, where a 130 pound lightning bolt shouldn't really rely on the belly to belly suplex or other overpowering movements.

and i agree with you up to a point, but why shouldn't our body builder rely on speed, there is nothing in being 300 lbs that prevents that?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

This Chinese wrestling "tearing - grip fight" technique is not commonly used in Judo.

Yes it is. Grip fighting is hugely important in Judo and the specific grip break shown in the video is fairly standard.

This Chinese wrestling "circle running" strategy is also not commonly used in Judo.

Are you talking about the circling before they close together or after they're clinched up? If the former, you're correct. If the latter, you are not.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I actually agree with you to a point...

Nothing should be discarded until you understand how it works, else how can you judge? On the other hand once you understand how actual combat works, and more importantly your own body, range of motion, body type, and the strengths and weaknesses entailed in the previous, you can get a feel of what works and what doesn't.

A 300 pound body builder probably shouldn't be throwing a lot of fancy kicks that rely on speed, where a 130 pound lightning bolt shouldn't really rely on the belly to belly suplex or other overpowering movements.

I agree with this in terms of combat/fighting, but not necessarily in training. You can learn a lot about your own body by practicing things your body is not suited for, and figuring out ways to make it worth. Also, if you ever decide to teach later on, you're doing your students a disservice if you don't know techniques that might help them just because they're not suited for you.

 

[jobo]

I agree with this in terms of combat/fighting, but not necessarily in training. You can learn a lot about your own body by practicing things your body is not suited for, and figuring out ways to make it worth. Also, if you ever decide to teach later on, you're doing your students a disservice if you don't know techniques that might help them just because they're not suited for you.

but that comes down to the ussual philosophical argument about the purpose of training, one to be an effective fighter and the other about the development of mind and body. They are not of,course mutually exclusive, but spending a lot of time learning a techneque that will never be of much use to you, isn't a good investment of time, if your goal is to be effective first and fore most

 

[JowGaWolf]

I see martial arts as techniques, and individuals applying them. The fact is we all have two legs and two hands, we all have the same relative area of a center if gravity. Much of these styles overlap so much it seems ridiculous to even fret and worry about someone's "style."

Or which style to practice, what matters or is not what you are practicing (within reason) but how you are practicing it.

well said

 

[JowGaWolf]

I’ve heard that a ton of times, and the more I hear it the more I disagree with it. I get it, and in a true SD situation or competition, you should absolutely stick with what works for you unless you absolutely have to do something else.

But the notion of discard it if it doesn’t work is flawed. There’s been techniques that I didn’t think would ever work. My previous school taught lot of things my current school does. There were things I didn’t think worked until my current teacher made simple corrections. Timing, distancing, footwork, angles, and hand placement are all things that’ll easily make or break a technique. Get all of those things down, and the useless technique becomes practical and effective. This isn’t just striking; grappling is full of this too. I couldn’t do a fireman’s carry in wrestling to save my life for quite some time. Practiced it every day. Had I not seen it done in actual competition, I’d think it was a worthless technique to discard. Somehow something just clicked years later and I could reliably throw it.

Of course there’s some extremely idiotic techniques out there; I’m not talking about that stuff.

Just to add on to what you are stating. There are some techniques that work, but we may be horrible at using that particular technique. I'm good at sweeping but sweeping doesn't work for everyone. Just because one person isn't good at it or can't do it well doesn't mean that the technique is invalid. If we plan on passing on our knowledge then we want keep even the techniques that "don't work for us" because it may be something that our student will actually be good in.

The only techniques that should be thrown away are invalid techniques (based on purpose and function). For example tricking techniques are valid for tricking but not for self defense (generally speaking). If a person is training for self-defense then many of those tricking techniques will need to be discarded in the context of self-defense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I’ve heard that a ton of times, and the more I hear it the more I disagree with it. I get it, and in a true SD situation or competition, you should absolutely stick with what works for you unless you absolutely have to do something else.

But the notion of discard it if it doesn’t work is flawed. There’s been techniques that I didn’t think would ever work. My previous school taught lot of things my current school does. There were things I didn’t think worked until my current teacher made simple corrections. Timing, distancing, footwork, angles, and hand placement are all things that’ll easily make or break a technique. Get all of those things down, and the useless technique becomes practical and effective. This isn’t just striking; grappling is full of this too. I couldn’t do a fireman’s carry in wrestling to save my life for quite some time. Practiced it every day. Had I not seen it done in actual competition, I’d think it was a worthless technique to discard. Somehow something just clicked years later and I could reliably throw it.

Of course there’s some extremely idiotic techniques out there; I’m not talking about that stuff.

I think there's a solid argument for "tabling" some things, to decide later if they should be discarded. That would apply to that fireman's carry. If something isn't working for you, and you suspect (with some sort of evidence, hopefully) that it does work for some, then set it aside (past learning the basics of it) and focus on what is functional for you. Once you get more solid in your abilities, revisit those tabled techniques (we all need something to work on after that point, anyway). Of course, you'll visit those techniques between those points (when they are covered in classes, etc.), but you'll dedicate none of your personal time to them until you feel reasonably good about the parts that are working for you, then you go back and focus on one or more of your "tabled" techniques.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Just to add on to what you are stating. There are some techniques that work, but we may be horrible at using that particular technique. I'm good at sweeping but sweeping doesn't work for everyone. Just because one person isn't good at it or can't do it well doesn't mean that the technique is invalid. If we plan on passing on our knowledge then we want keep even the techniques that "don't work for us" because it may be something that our student will actually be good in.

The only techniques that should be thrown away are invalid techniques (based on purpose and function). For example tricking techniques are valid for tricking but not for self defense (generally speaking). If a person is training for self-defense then many of those tricking techniques will need to be discarded in the context of self-defense.

I'll toss in another category of techniques I've found worth keeping. I call them "esoteric" techniques. They don't have (realistic) direct application, but teach important principles that either make other techniques available, or combine with other techniques.