Is it really the person not the style?

[Zero]

You would have to ask Marine?

I think it's pretty well understood and acknowledged that not much actual H2H takes place on the whole in most combat zones. But noted, while I have a friend who is Marine and know quite a few people in army and navy, I am not one myself.

 

[WaterGal]

I dont believe it was ever widely taught to the Korean Military till long after the japanese left and the "TKD" label started getting slapped on to everything.

Was there even a Korean military until after the Japanese left? Generally I don't think that's how imperial occupation works.

 

[Drose427]

Was there even a Korean military until after the Japanese left? Generally I don't think that's how imperial occupation works.

Official Army, no, although groups did fight back. Towards the end of world war II however many Koreans were conscripted, which is where many Korean Martial artists learned Japanese Arts in the first place.

 

[MJS]

I'm just wondering if its the person not the style, then what's the point of MA? I mean I'm a great fan of MA, but does this mean a person who doesn't train MA but creates their own style could be just as effective as if they did MA training? If not then is it actually that some styles could be more effective? If so, then why do people learn martial arts if they could do just as well with their own method?

IMO, there are more than enough styles out there, so why anyone feels it necessary to run out and try to create their own thing, is beyond me. Anyway, as for your question: yes, I believe the person plays a big part, moreso than the style. IMO, it all comes down to how each person trains the art.

 

[Mephisto]

IMO, there are more than enough styles out there, so why anyone feels it necessary to run out and try to create their own thing, is beyond me. Anyway, as for your question: yes, I believe the person plays a big part, moreso than the style. IMO, it all comes down to how each person trains the art.

I agree, there's an abundance of styles out there and while I like innovation I don't see why some create new styles when they've never even tested it. Guys create their own blade system without ever having been in a knife fight. What's the point? Why are you better than your instructors? I read an article recently about how each instructor should tech three styles. The first is the curriculum or traditional system. The second in his instructors understanding or interpretation of that system. And the third is your own understanding and interpretation of your system based on your experience and fights/training. With this approach there is no need to create your own system it's more of an acknowledgement that everyone has a unique understanding and reference for the application of his or her art. I don't teach this way but it makes sense to me.

As far as your thoughts in the person being more important, I disagree. I'm curious if you can explain yourself more in relation to my points. First as has been mentioned each style has potential, it is the method you train that limits you. If all of your training if unrealistic one steps and compliant drills you may never learn what it takes to handle an aggressive attacker. That being said (training method is what limits a person) certain arts and systems all tend to train in the same method, therefore some arts limited by training method. The individual is important, very important and all systems will have good and bad practitioners, but you can be the strongest and most athletic guy in a system but If you only train in compliant and unrealistic methods you're never going to be better than someone with equal drive and motivation that trains in a system that does. A system can limit you based on how they train and what they know, in which case the style trumps individual ability.

 

[drop bear]

I agree, there's an abundance of styles out there and while I like innovation I don't see why some create new styles when they've never even tested it. Guys create their own blade system without ever having been in a knife fight. What's the point? Why are you better than your instructors? I read an article recently about how each instructor should tech three styles. The first is the curriculum or traditional system. The second in his instructors understanding or interpretation of that system. And the third is your own understanding and interpretation of your system based on your experience and fights/training. With this approach there is no need to create your own system it's more of an acknowledgement that everyone has a unique understanding and reference for the application of his or her art. I don't teach this way but it makes sense to me.

As far as your thoughts in the person being more important, I disagree. I'm curious if you can explain yourself more in relation to my points. First as has been mentioned each style has potential, it is the method you train that limits you. If all of your training if unrealistic one steps and compliant drills you may never learn what it takes to handle an aggressive attacker. That being said (training method is what limits a person) certain arts and systems all tend to train in the same method, therefore some arts limited by training method. The individual is important, very important and all systems will have good and bad practitioners, but you can be the strongest and most athletic guy in a system but If you only train in compliant and unrealistic methods you're never going to be better than someone with equal drive and motivation that trains in a system that does. A system can limit you based on how they train and what they know, in which case the style trumps individual ability.

We had a decent fight coach up recently. And sort of on that point.the fighter pretty much can get away with doing what he is told. The good coach crafts the style to suit the fighter.

 

[Steve]

IMO, there are more than enough styles out there, so why anyone feels it necessary to run out and try to create their own thing, is beyond me. Anyway, as for your question: yes, I believe the person plays a big part, moreso than the style. IMO, it all comes down to how each person trains the art.

Don't most people train the way the they're asked to train? What I mean is, in addition to a certain amount of individual talent and motivation, there is a very large, institutional component to training success. If you go to a school, you will train pretty much what and how they ask you to. Some schools will be more practical and effective than others simply because the instructors are more competent and the training model is more effective. This can be true, even if the curriculum is identical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MJS]

I agree, there's an abundance of styles out there and while I like innovation I don't see why some create new styles when they've never even tested it. Guys create their own blade system without ever having been in a knife fight. What's the point? Why are you better than your instructors? I read an article recently about how each instructor should tech three styles. The first is the curriculum or traditional system. The second in his instructors understanding or interpretation of that system. And the third is your own understanding and interpretation of your system based on your experience and fights/training. With this approach there is no need to create your own system it's more of an acknowledgement that everyone has a unique understanding and reference for the application of his or her art. I don't teach this way but it makes sense to me.

As far as your thoughts in the person being more important, I disagree. I'm curious if you can explain yourself more in relation to my points. First as has been mentioned each style has potential, it is the method you train that limits you. If all of your training if unrealistic one steps and compliant drills you may never learn what it takes to handle an aggressive attacker. That being said (training method is what limits a person) certain arts and systems all tend to train in the same method, therefore some arts limited by training method. The individual is important, very important and all systems will have good and bad practitioners, but you can be the strongest and most athletic guy in a system but If you only train in compliant and unrealistic methods you're never going to be better than someone with equal drive and motivation that trains in a system that does. A system can limit you based on how they train and what they know, in which case the style trumps individual ability.

Sorry, I haven't been on for a few days, so I just saw this. Sure, I'll clarify my comment. Sure, some systems out there, are probably not as realistic as others. Of course, the person training said style, probably isn't going to think so. But all that aside, why couldn't the student go out and train in a more realistic fashion, cross train, etc? I'll use myself as an example. I've trained Kenpo for 20+yrs. For the record, I no longer actively train at a Kenpo school...I've moved on to another art...but I'll still go through some SD now and then, just to keep things fresh. Anyways, I have a number of training partners who I workout with on a regular basis. Now and then, I'll take some of the things from Kenpo and cross reference them with the arts that my workout partners do. So for example, I'll take a take down defense from Kenpo, and see how well it works with someone who trains BJJ. IMO, the BJJ guy is going to train their take down stuff a bit more realistic than the average Kenpo school. Of course, some die hard Kenpoists will claim that it is realistic, just that I didn't learn it right, blah, blah, blah. Perhaps, or perhaps they're too busy drinking the kool aid, and refuse to take off their rose colored glasses, to see that some things, well...just suck!

Some people will just stick with the unrealistic drills, and never take it a step further. For example: I got into a heated debated with someone who used to be on here, over what is considered sparring, in Modern Arnis. That is also an art that I've trained in for quite a while, and also have a Black Belt in. Anyway, this person was claiming that the stationary drills/patterns that we see in the art, are sparring. I disagreed. Sparring, in the FMAs, IMO, is akin to what you see in the Dog Bros. clips. Oddly enough, all of the stick disarms that you see, which are usually done in a static fashion, usually go out the window, once you're put into a sparring scenario. Things are just moving a bit too fast, for all of the fancy static stuff that you see. But that's the thing...that static stuff is fine...in the beginning, but if you ever want to get good, if you ever want to really test yourself, you need to step out of the box, out of the comfort zone, and train alive.

Trust me, if I knew then, what I know now, about the various training methods, and arts that're out there, I'd have made some serious changes. But it is what it is. I'll give credit where it's due, and I do credit past training, poor or not, because if it wasn't for my initial training, I'd never have been exposed to what I have been today.

So, it's probably a mix of both....a realistic art, and realistic training, on the part of the student.

I hope this answered your question.

 

[MJS]

Don't most people train the way the they're asked to train? What I mean is, in addition to a certain amount of individual talent and motivation, there is a very large, institutional component to training success. If you go to a school, you will train pretty much what and how they ask you to. Some schools will be more practical and effective than others simply because the instructors are more competent and the training model is more effective. This can be true, even if the curriculum is identical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree Steve. And that's fine, if that's what the student wants. BJJ is pretty popular with competition, but I'm sure there are some students, who just want to learn the art, roll in class, and call it a day. They probably don't care about going to a tournament. I may be wrong, but I doubt every single student, in every single gym, is into competing, as much as the next guy, or someone who's a bit younger. My point with using that as an example, is that some are content with things being what they are, nothing more. There are some, I'm sure, that might go out, and cross train, because while they like the school, they are looking for a bit more.

 

[Mephisto]

I agree Steve. And that's fine, if that's what the student wants. BJJ is pretty popular with competition, but I'm sure there are some students, who just want to learn the art, roll in class, and call it a day. They probably don't care about going to a tournament. I may be wrong, but I doubt every single student, in every single gym, is into competing, as much as the next guy, or someone who's a bit younger. My point with using that as an example, is that some are content with things being what they are, nothing more. There are some, I'm sure, that might go out, and cross train, because while they like the school, they are looking for a bit more.

I think you made some good points in your reply to me. My point is some styles train more realistic than others, that's it. As for bjj guys not competing, you're right not everyone competes. Same at my boxing club, not everyone competes, some choose not to spar. But they benefit from the knowledge of the fighters that do compete. An instructor can tell you a technique works and is realistic because he's used it against guys trying to sub him or pound his head in many times. Additionally, his competing students have used the same technique with similar outcomes. The problem arises when a system does not compete or spar, they don't have the knowledge base that a sparring/fighting system does. An instructor might be a bouncer or tough guy that's used his stuff in some scuffles but that evidence is a little more anecdotal but not every I structure will have that same experience and knowledge consistently.

 

[Steve]

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that sparring/competition is necessary in order to have an effective training model. But, I'd come at it from the other side. It's really about outcomes and what you expect to gain from your training. Whatever your training goals, if you aren't making consistent and reasonable progress toward your goals, you are doing something wrong. As I said in another thread, you are either training the wrong thing, or are training the right thing in the wrong way.

Mephisto, I agree with your thoughts on sparring and competition, and appreciate your point that having training partners who compete help even those who choose not to. I'm personally an advocate of sparring, but I wouldn't say it's the only way to develop skills.

But, the proof is in the pudding. If it takes years to develop a fundamental proficiency, you're being taken for a ride. And if you're being told that "it's" better because it takes longer or is more complicated or harder or anything like that... that's a red flag, IMO.

For example, BJJ is perceived as being difficult to learn. But, the formula for success in BJJ is no secret, and it's foolproof. Regardless of your fitness level at the outset, as long as you can physically engage in the training, you will become proficient. Guaranteed. If you train regularly, at least 3 times per week, engage in the training and don't stop, you will make steady, measurable progress and within a year or two EARN a blue belt. Every time. Big, small, tall, short, fat, skinny, weak, strong, athletic, clumsy, young or old. If you train consistently, you will have demonstrable skills that you will be able to execute under pressure against people who are actively trying to thwart you.

If I got to the end of my first year and couldn't apply the skills I was learning, I'd find a new school or reassess my training goals.

If your goal is to lose weight, and you aren't losing weight, there's a problem somewhere. If your goal is to learn self defense, but are being told that you have to master techniques over years for "it" to work, something is terribly wrong.

 

[MJS]

I think you made some good points in your reply to me. My point is some styles train more realistic than others, that's it. As for bjj guys not competing, you're right not everyone competes. Same at my boxing club, not everyone competes, some choose not to spar. But they benefit from the knowledge of the fighters that do compete. An instructor can tell you a technique works and is realistic because he's used it against guys trying to sub him or pound his head in many times. Additionally, his competing students have used the same technique with similar outcomes. The problem arises when a system does not compete or spar, they don't have the knowledge base that a sparring/fighting system does. An instructor might be a bouncer or tough guy that's used his stuff in some scuffles but that evidence is a little more anecdotal but not every I structure will have that same experience and knowledge consistently.

Absolutely! While sparring is often a 'hot topic' around here, I'm a big advocate of it. I currently train Kyokushin, so sparring is a big focus. There are many tournaments around, ie: Canada, NY, CT, Maine, etc, that my teacher encourages us to go to, but we're not required to compete. I fought a few years ago. Although I lost, I felt that I gained a lot of experience from it. My teacher hosts one every Oct, so I'm planning on fighting again this year.

*side note* regarding my 'hot topic' comment: there have been many thread on here, regarding sparring. Some feel that its good, while others argue their point that it hinders training. This really isn't a sparring thread, but if you're interested in reading those threads, you can do a quick search. They're rather interesting.

 

[Shai Hulud]

Little bit of both. As a student of the art it's your responsibility to understand it from every possible angle and how it translates to real-life demands. Rote memorization on its own is worthless without some critical thought and practical application to follow through on.

The art itself also must at least somehow recognize and conform to general principles of combat. It must have tactics and technique that are applicable, efficient and within the bounds of physics and natural law.

You could be the best student in your class, but if you happen to be a Yellow Bamboo practitioner and attempt to Chi-blast a mugger, you're going to get thumped.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you have cross trained both

- MT and TKD, when you apply roundhouse kick, it's up to you whether you want to use the MT roundhouse kick, or to use the TKD roundhouse kick.
- boxing and XingYi, when you apply uppercut, it's up to you whether you want to use the boxing uppercut, or to use the XingYi Zhuan Quan.
- boxing and CLF, when you apply hook punch, it's up to you whether you want to use the boxing hook punch, or to use the CLF hay-maker.
- wrestling and Judo, will you not use "single leg" just because Judo has dis-allowed it in Judo tournament?
- ...

How much are you going to allow "style" to put restriction on yourself?

 

[Emilee <3]

I'm just wondering if its the person not the style, then what's the point of MA? I mean I'm a great fan of MA, but does this mean a person who doesn't train MA but creates their own style could be just as effective as if they did MA training? If not then is it actually that some styles could be more effective? If so, then why do people learn martial arts if they could do just as well with their own method?

I think it's a bit of both, but mainly the person. I've seen people with the same color/degree of belt countless times, and one person is clearly putting in effort (and are therefore performing really well), and then another person doesn't really try that much and they aren't as good at the martial art. It's also good to keep in mind that because everyone has a different height, weight, amount of strength, speed, etc, there's always going to be people within a martial art that excel or don't excel at all. So in short, everyone's physical strengths and capabilities, as well as their mental determination, are different, which impacts whether or not they succeed in their martial art.

 

[Lameman]

As someone who has built a system from scratch. Go out and learn a MA. Effective, has more to do with person then art, but having a good foundation to build on is very important. I have only ever taught someone as a supplemental. I understand fighting, I'll teach you how to read an opponant. But that isn't enough to win. You need good technique. And the discipline to train.

 

[marques]

I'm just wondering if its the person not the style, then what's the point of MA? I mean I'm a great fan of MA, but does this mean a person who doesn't train MA but creates their own style could be just as effective as if they did MA training? If not then is it actually that some styles could be more effective? If so, then why do people learn martial arts if they could do just as well with their own method?

Interesting question. In a few word, I think people should start following someone or something. Then they can adapt the style(s) to itself, creating (?) its own style.
Re-invent everything from nothing will take ages. On the other hand follow bad instruction is worst than nothing...

 

[Kenpoguy123]

Anyone can beat anyone simple as that it all depends on circumstances and seriously are you really to lazy to type fhe words martial arts

 

[drop bear]

Pretty sure we are all training in a style to get better.

If it was the person then that would be a whole lot of time and money in the bin.

 

[Ironbear24]

In YOUR opinion, what's the most effective style?

My advice to you is to not worry about styles. Just worry about training in one. Do it course look for good instructors though. People here can help you identify a bad one from a good one.