Speaking Negatively About The Arts

[MJS]

Many times, when reading through the various threads, I come across a few posts that have a negative tone about a certain art. Someone may say that an art is not effective, or history surrounding a certain art is not accurate, to name a few things.

My question is: Why do people find it necessary to bad mouth an art? I've been training in the arts for a while now, and I've yet to see one art that totally addresses every single situation 100%, yet you would never know that by reading some of these posts. So, what causes this?

Mike

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Many times, when reading through the various threads, I come across a few posts that have a negative tone about a certain art. Someone may say that an art is not effective, or history surrounding a certain art is not accurate, to name a few things.

My question is: Why do people find it necessary to bad mouth an art? I've been training in the arts for a while now, and I've yet to see one art that totally addresses every single situation 100%, yet you would never know that by reading some of these posts. So, what causes this?

Mike

From my experience, most of the denigrating of other arts, particularly on MA forums is the result of a person's insecurity and immaturity. Were the denigrators more secure in themselves and their art (if they have one, many trolls don't really train much themselves), they would be more concerned with discussing their own training and if they were more mature, they would be less concerned with what others do.

 

[Carol]

I think a lot stems from a person's expectations.

Entertainment is one way that people's expectations get set. C'mon, how many of us got the idea that training MA would be cool because we saw an MAist in the movies or on TV? :wavey: Granted, it took me until I was 30-something to start but I thought some of the 80s movies I saw as were cool as heck.

Some folks that grew up watching Kung Fu theatre may have their arts expectations set on doing high-flying kicks and devastating hands strikes and may be disappointed if their art doesn't train them to do that.

Liikewise with folks that watch UFC may have their expectations set on a ground game. Other folks that watch stunt performers in movies may have their expectations set on some heart-stopping takedowns.

Outside of the entertainment field, it seems that others have their their expectations set by a teacher or potential teacher. Or perhaps they had their expectations dashed because, for one reason or another, the person couldn't perform the way they wanted to when they had to.

Whatever the reason...a lot of the "their art sucks" comments seem to be stemming from someone expecting something, but not seeing it/getting it for some reason...whether or not it's a good reason is perhaps a different topic for discussion.

 

[Lisa]

I think it is a combination of things. It stems from people not wanting to be duped so they have to defend their art to the bitter end. It comes from bad experiences and being duped and swearing it will never happen again and it also comes from peoples misconception of what their art is and what other peoples arts are. People all too easily wanna be the "top dog" and wanna prove that the art they are training in is the be all and end all. Usually I find these people to be relative newbies who don't know dick and have never walked in another pair of shoes (trained in another art) but need to feel that they have all the experience they need to make such comments. I have found on this board and others that those that have been around for a while don't post in that fashion. They just know that it ain't so.

 

[MJS]

From my experience, most of the denigrating of other arts, particularly on MA forums is the result of a person's insecurity and immaturity.

Agreed. It seems that many times people do not want to admit that there is a 'weak spot' in something. Its amazing how someone can say, "Your art is missing X", when in fact their art is missing things as well.

Were the denigrators more secure in themselves and their art (if they have one, many trolls don't really train much themselves), they would be more concerned with discussing their own training and if they were more mature, they would be less concerned with what others do.

IMO, slamming something really doesnt get anyone too far. My art has its weak spots, and I do my part to fix that. I'm happy with what I do and thats all that matters to me. I think alot of the time, people judge something without having a full understanding of it, as well as viewing one school and assuming that every other school around is going to be the same exact way.

Mike

 

[exile]

All of you folks have touched on some of the critical factors that go into that negativity that Mike was observing. I think, myself, that it's useful to divide the negativity into two factors: the negativity of individuals and the negativity of a culture, or a community. In the case of MAs, both are relevant and feed each other.

(1) There are a lot of angry, bitter individuals out there. The world isn't necessarily a happy place. And many people who are frustrated with their lives on a fairly constant basis feel the need to externalize that frustration as anger and rage (rather than internalizing it as depression, say). One way of expressing anger is to hurt someone. So belittling others, or belittling what others do, is a natural temptation. At the same time, angry people are often attracted to violence, no matter how systematized and controlled the form of that violence. Quite a few people motivated by anger are, I suspect, drawn to the MAs for that reason, and many of those people are, as Lisa noted, pretty inexperienced. For these folks, bashing other people's MAs is just another way to lash out. For these people, it could be anything. It happens in every domain; I've stumbled across theology boards, for heaven's sake—and no, I'm not making this up!!—where people seemed to treat each other with a pious hostile condescending coldness that would make you long for the out-and-out macho pissing contests on bullshido.com.

(2) The other side of the equation is the community, and here I think Jonathan's point above, about insecurity, is dead on; it's a belief I've held for a long time—that the MA community is in general insecure, because its members rarely get to test the effectiveness of their art under the most dangerous conditions, so don't really know if it would work under those conditions. People worry that what they know isn't the real deal, but if it isn't, what does this mean about the hundreds or thousands of hours they've put into learning these arts? Serious insecurity and extreme commitment is a very explosive mixture—something's gotta give, eh? The result I think is that on the whole, MAists are often quick to rush to judgment and anger.

Put the two together—frustrated unhappy individuals and a community with anxieties about whether it knows what it's doing gnawing away at it—and BANG!!!

 

[MJS]

I think it is a combination of things. It stems from people not wanting to be duped so they have to defend their art to the bitter end. It comes from bad experiences and being duped and swearing it will never happen again and it also comes from peoples misconception of what their art is and what other peoples arts are. People all too easily wanna be the "top dog" and wanna prove that the art they are training in is the be all and end all. Usually I find these people to be relative newbies who don't know dick and have never walked in another pair of shoes (trained in another art) but need to feel that they have all the experience they need to make such comments. I have found on this board and others that those that have been around for a while don't post in that fashion. They just know that it ain't so.

I can't disagree with this! I've seen a few people from here, that seem to have had a bad experience with a school or an art. As I said above, they assume that every other school in the world that teaches the same art, is going to be the same way. How do they know that? Have they traveled across the country to every school? Not likely. Its also amazing because some tend to base their thoughts on what they hear from others, rather than form their own opinion.

If someone does not like an art, thats fine, they simply do not have to train in it. But its not right in my opinion, to bash the art, because they 'think' that they know the ins and outs of it.

Mike

 

[tradrockrat]

I think the answer is here in this thread. I really agree with all that has been stated and can only add that there are generally two ways to feel good about yourself - tear everyone around you down, or build everyone around you up. Those that tear down other martial systems tend to fall into the former.

 

[kidswarrior]

What Exile said. :ultracool

 

[kidswarrior]

I think the answer is here in this thread. I really agree with all that has been stated and can only add that there are generally two ways to feel good about yourself - tear everyone around you down, or build everyone around you up. Those that tear down other martial systems tend to fall into the former.

Why can't I be this concise? Great summary of the problem.

 

[jks9199]

From my experience, most of the denigrating of other arts, particularly on MA forums is the result of a person's insecurity and immaturity. Were the denigrators more secure in themselves and their art (if they have one, many trolls don't really train much themselves), they would be more concerned with discussing their own training and if they were more mature, they would be less concerned with what others do.

I've got to agree. Most of the people who bad mouth particular arts are doing so because they feel the need to boost their own ego or confidence, or to justify their own beliefs, in my opinion. I can think of one recent thread that exemplified this...

I do make a small exception; there are people who take legitimate exception to either the practices of a particular school or teacher (which often means unethical behavior on the part of the school or teacher), or because they're simply claiming to be something their not, like the Koga ninja groups. Both amount to attacks on deceptive or unethical behavior -- not the style itself.

 

[Kacey]

Great topic!

Many times, when reading through the various threads, I come across a few posts that have a negative tone about a certain art. Someone may say that an art is not effective, or history surrounding a certain art is not accurate, to name a few things.

My question is: Why do people find it necessary to bad mouth an art? I've been training in the arts for a while now, and I've yet to see one art that totally addresses every single situation 100%, yet you would never know that by reading some of these posts. So, what causes this?

Mike

I think there are a couple of factors.

Agreed. It seems that many times people do not want to admit that there is a 'weak spot' in something. Its amazing how someone can say, "Your art is missing X", when in fact their art is missing things as well.

I both agree and disagree with this - there is a fine line between saying "my/your art is missing 'X' and could improve this way" and "my/your art is is missing 'X' and is therefore bad/meaningless/etc.". It is much easier to identify what is (or may be) missing in an art - your own or others - than it is to find ways to remediate it. Too many people stop after identifying weaknesses - and all arts have their own combination of strengths and weaknesses - and it is much safer, emotionally, to describe the weaknesses in an art you don't study than in your own, especially for those of us who have been training a long time and are emotionally/physically/chronologically/etc. invested in the art(s) we study.

The only way to improve a martial art - or anything else - is to identify the strengths and weaknesses, and then find ways to improve the weaknesses, either by using the strengths to bolster the weaknesses or by adding complementary strengths from other arts - but that is a really hard thing to do, emotionally (due to emotional investment), chronologically (due to the time necessary to cross-train or otherwise learn and add the necessary skills), physically (different arts have different basic physical motions), and so on. Too many people (and I was one of them, for the first several years after I started) are taught by their instructor, association, senior instructor, fellow students, or whomever, that the art they are studying is "the best" - else, why study it? Some of this is marketing, some ego, some training, and so on - some is insecurity about the efficacy of a particular art or arts.

One of the benefits of sites like MT is the free exchange of information that occurs - which is, IMHO, the only way to combat the above problems.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I definitely come down on the side of insecurity and fear. People who badmouth anything they're not a part of are doing it for one reason only: to make themselves appear somehow bigger. You see it here (occasionally), on other forums, in politics....

Racism and homophobia are other, more extreme examples of the same concept. Feel bad about yourself? At least you ain't a darkie or fag. There now, don't you feel better?

Thankfully, as our skills grow we start to feel better about ourselves. The need to badmouth other arts begins to disapper.

 

[Andrew Green]

Simple rule, that applies to just about everything in our little world.

Don't believe the marketing.

Like any other product, martial arts lessons are sold. And like any other product, they are marketed. No style is going to market itself as being inferior to any other in any way shape or form. Yet they are, each style does different things in different ways for different reasons. A TKD practitioner is not going to beat a Vale Tudo practitioner in a Vale Tudo fight. Reverse works as well, a Vale Tudo fighter is not going to beat a TKD fighter in a Vale Tudo fight.

Apart from effectiveness in different areas, history is also important to many. They want there art descended from someone with demi-god like skills, straight out of a kung fu movie, but without the wires. They want there style to have the strongest lineage, combining the best of all previous styles (Thanks Bruce Lee), and just about every styles "salesmen" are willing to state matter of factly that that style does just that.

Anyone else notice how after Bruce Lee ranted on about cross-training, every style suddenly was a mixture of the best elements from other styles, with non-effective bits thrown out? Or how after the UFC all the existing styles suddenly discovered there forgotten ground fighting skills?

It's all marketing, every style claims to be the best, claiming to be ok at a bunch of things, and good at one, when all the other schools say they are the best at them all isn't good business.

But that's all it is, marketing. Your style sucks at most things, all styles do. Chances are it is best at one thing, at most. In most things, it's probably not even top 5, and that goes for all styles.

 

[MJS]

Great topic!

Thank you.

I both agree and disagree with this - there is a fine line between saying "my/your art is missing 'X' and could improve this way" and "my/your art is is missing 'X' and is therefore bad/meaningless/etc.". It is much easier to identify what is (or may be) missing in an art - your own or others - than it is to find ways to remediate it. Too many people stop after identifying weaknesses - and all arts have their own combination of strengths and weaknesses - and it is much safer, emotionally, to describe the weaknesses in an art you don't study than in your own, especially for those of us who have been training a long time and are emotionally/physically/chronologically/etc. invested in the art(s) we study.

Good points. Thats the problem though. Its all in the wording. Most of the time, people will just come right out and say that the art is bad or not effective, rather than approaching it in a more constructive way. How can an art improve something rather than saying that its just a bad art.

The only way to improve a martial art - or anything else - is to identify the strengths and weaknesses, and then find ways to improve the weaknesses, either by using the strengths to bolster the weaknesses or by adding complementary strengths from other arts - but that is a really hard thing to do, emotionally (due to emotional investment), chronologically (due to the time necessary to cross-train or otherwise learn and add the necessary skills), physically (different arts have different basic physical motions), and so on. Too many people (and I was one of them, for the first several years after I started) are taught by their instructor, association, senior instructor, fellow students, or whomever, that the art they are studying is "the best" - else, why study it? Some of this is marketing, some ego, some training, and so on - some is insecurity about the efficacy of a particular art or arts.

Well, I'm always promoting cross training. I too, hear people say, "Its already in the art, you just need to find it." While that may be the case, some may not be able to 'find it' and some may want to expand on a certain aspect. So, as you said, that gives the 'ultimate art' impression. And then there are some that see the success of someone else, and they assume that they too, will also be successfull. I grapple, Royce Gracie grapples, but we're two very different people, so what works for him, may not work for me. Yet, certain people do not want to accept that as an answer.

One of the benefits of sites like MT is the free exchange of information that occurs - which is, IMHO, the only way to combat the above problems.

 

[Adept]

My question is: Why do people find it necessary to bad mouth an art? I've been training in the arts for a while now, and I've yet to see one art that totally addresses every single situation 100%, yet you would never know that by reading some of these posts. So, what causes this?

Mike

I firmly believe that, when you get right down to it, there is only one art. The art of fighting.

Now, the hundreds (possibly thousands) of different martial arts we know and love today aren't really seperate and distinct entities. They are different ways of doing the same thing. They are different training methodologies, focusing on different tactics, mindsets and techniques. By breaking the study of violence down into seperate arts, we can discuss seperate components of it more easily. Rather than saying "I focus heavily on kicking at all ranges, and I don't train my grappling skills very strongly" people can just say "I do TKD".

As a result, when someone 'bags out' a particular art or style, they are saying that this particular style of fighting, this set of techniques and tactics, is inferior somehow. And some of the time, they are right. All arts are certainly not created equally. I like to use the example of WTF Taekwondo and Boxing. Both are popular sports, both are featured in the olympics, yet one is a credible and dangerous style on the street and the other is not. I'll leave it to the discerning poster to decide which is which...


A lot of the problem comes from people refuse to accept that all tactics can be modified, and that techniques can be taken from anywhere.

To use the recent 'TKD vs Muay Thai' thread as an example: I did not see a TKD and MT fighter. I just saw two fighters. And yet a lot of the debate in that thread revolved around whether or not the 'TKD' fighter was using proper TKD, and what sort of TKD, and what techniques are included in TKD, and why he fared poorly against his opponent and was it a fault of the TKD.

All of which, frankly, was a waste of time. I cannot see any point to deliberately and artificially limiting your tactics and techniques based around those contained in a single art. If you feel you need more powerful hand techniques, find someone who can teach them to you. It doesn't matter if they come from a boxing caoch, a TKD black-belt, a Muay Thai school or just some bloke you met down the pub. So long as they work and you know how to use them.

Wasting time trying to define a certain art or style, and then complain or badmouth that art or style based on it's definition is a waste of time. Everyone should realise that all arts and styles are simply technique repositories, and that you should learn what you want, regardless of what style it comes from.

 

[tradrockrat]

I remember the first time I tried a specific technique my instructor showed me. It was a little flashy and I loved it, but I asked my instructor, "Does this really work?"

He replied, "Of course it really works! I don't know if it will work for you, but it definitely works."

Simple, huh? (always cracks me up when I think about it.)

 

[exile]

I firmly believe that, when you get right down to it, there is only one art. The art of fighting.

Now, the hundreds (possibly thousands) of different martial arts we know and love today aren't really seperate and distinct entities. They are different ways of doing the same thing.

You've offered here another formulation of Gichin Funakoshi's observation that

There is no place in contemporary katate-do for different schools... I have heard myself and my colleagues referred to as the Shotokan school, but I strongly object this attempt at classification. My belief is that all these `schools' should be amalgamated into one so that karate -do may pursue an orderly and useful progress into man's future'.

You're saying that the difference between the arts is essentially a difference in contingent facts of their historical development, but that they don't fundamentally differ so far as objectives. I think this is true up to a point... but it's also true that when someone goes into a fight, they have to pursue a strategy, and employ techniques consistent with that strategy. Taekwondo is a hard linear striking art, while Aikido is the opposite in many respects. It's not just a matter of which techs you choose to employ at any given point—isn't it also a matter of which of the two overall strategies you use? The TKD I learn aims to eliminate the attacker from the fight by delivering a finishing strike at the earliest opportunity. If your plan is based on doing that, you can't view the fight in the same way as the Aikidoka...

 

[Tames D]

There are people that don't believe in lengthening their line. They would rather cut someone else's line. Those people need to read ZEN IN THE MARTIAL ARTS by Joe Hyams. Specifically the chapter titled Lengthen Your Line.

 

[Adept]

You've offered here another formulation of Gichin Funakoshi's observation that

There is no place in contemporary katate-do for different schools... I have heard myself and my colleagues referred to as the Shotokan school, but I strongly object this attempt at classification. My belief is that all these `schools' should be amalgamated into one so that karate -do may pursue an orderly and useful progress into man's future'.

More or less, I suppose. I don't have a problem with different schools, different arts and different styles all being seperate, but it is important for all students to realise that they shouldn't limit themselves to one style for it's own sake

Taekwondo is a hard linear striking art, while Aikido is the opposite in many respects. It's not just a matter of which techs you choose to employ at any given point—isn't it also a matter of which of the two overall strategies you use?

Absolutely, but the same principle applies. There is no need to limit yourself to a single strategy from a single school. Now, this isn't to say you should be chopping and changing strategies in the middle of an altercation but that every student should develop a range of personal strategies that work for them.