The Art or The Person

[MJS]

Reading thorugh some threads recently, I began thinking of a few things. Many times, people begin training because of the success or stories they've heard about the art or other people in the art. I'll use BJJ for an example. Back in '93, once the UFC made its debut, everyone ran out to begin training in this art that seemed to dominate the ring. Now, is it a given that anyone that trains in BJJ is going to always be the victor in every outcome? I'm not talking about preset matches, where everyone is paired up with an equal, but in the real world, where things are not equal. What determines that outcome? This of course is not limited to BJJ, but any art. If someone trains in TKD, is it a given that because they train in that art, they're going to be successfull?

This thread is not intended to be a my art vs. your art. Its not intended to turn into a flame war. I'm looking for some good, friendly debate.

Mike

 

[exile]

Reading thorugh some threads recently, I began thinking of a few things. Many times, people begin training because of the success or stories they've heard about the art or other people in the art. I'll use BJJ for an example. Back in '93, once the UFC made its debut, everyone ran out to begin training in this art that seemed to dominate the ring. Now, is it a given that anyone that trains in BJJ is going to always be the victor in every outcome? I'm not talking about preset matches, where everyone is paired up with an equal, but in the real world, where things are not equal. What determines that outcome? This of course is not limited to BJJ, but any art. If someone trains in TKD, is it a given that because they train in that art, they're going to be successfull?

This thread is not intended to be a my art vs. your art. Its not intended to turn into a flame war. I'm looking for some good, friendly debate.

Mike

Here's an extreme analogy: we know that a Porsche Turbo is a more powerful car than an Acura sedan (right off, a different situation from the MA scene, but stay with me). Take two people off the street, plunk them in the drivers' seat of each car, and set them off around a track to finish a set of laps . Who will win? The guy in the Porsche, obviously, right? Wrong, because if the guy in the Porsche doesn't know how to drive a super-high-performance car, one moreover with the wicked oversteer that Porsches are notorious for, there's a good chance that the Porche will never make it even once around the track; certainly if the Acura is driven by a very skilled racing driver and the Porsche by someone who's never driven anything but Subaru Outbacks before, there's no way I'd want to bet good money on the Porsche.

Now adjust that situation for the following: there's no sound way to establish the same kind of comparison between two MAs that we have for the relative performances of the Porsche and the Acura. All MAs correspond to Formula 1 cars (from different racing car manufacturers) in principle. Now take the same two guys and put them in two Formula 1s chosen at random. Who's going to win?

Now take two people off the street, about whom we know nothing, and put them in the Formula 1s. Surely it's evident that the winner will be the person who has (i) the best training at driving a 700 hp. automobile on a tight track and (ii) the better reflexes, ability to think coolly, and ability to plan a line? On the day, for two pro drivers, it comes down to fractions of a second. Same with skis: Which are better, Rossignol or Vokl slalom skis? The winners in a given race may be separated by hundreds of a second in any given race, corresponding to a few inches over a long bumpy track, and they may well trade places in the next race, or blow out completely. Would anyone want to argue that a give ski is simply a better ski, under the circumstances?

In the case of the MAs, there's one added factor: we have no way to subject the system to objective engineering tests the way we can with cars or skis. So it seems like a supremely vain endeavor to try to assess the contributions of the different systems the way we might, in principle, be able to do with the cars or skis if we had some assurance that the racers were absolutely identical in all technical abilities. Since we can't, it seems particularly futile to look for diffferences in the systems, when there is so much reason that the difference in practitioners will be the overwhelming factor, just as with cars, or skis, or...

 

[Laurentkd]

Here's an extreme analogy: we know that a Porsche Turbo is a more powerful car than an Acura sedan (right off, a different situation from the MA scene, but stay with me). Take two people off the street, plunk them in the drivers' seat of each car, and set them off around a track to finish a set of laps . Who will win? The guy in the Porsche, obviously, right? Wrong, because if the guy in the Porsche doesn't know how to drive a super-high-performance car, one moreover with the wicked oversteer that Porsches are notorious for, there's a good chance that the Porche will never make it even once around the track; certainly if the Acura is driven by a very skilled racing driver and the Porsche by someone who's never driven anything but Subaru Outbacks before, there's no way I'd want to bet good money on the Porsche.

Now adjust that situation for the following: there's no sound way to establish the same kind of comparison between two MAs that we have for the relative performances of the Porsche and the Acura. All MAs correspond to Formula 1 cars (from different racing car manufacturers) in principle. Now take the same two guys and put them in two Formula 1s chosen at random. Who's going to win?

Now take two people off the street, about whom we know nothing, and put them in the Formula 1s. Surely it's evident that the winner will be the person who has (i) the best training at driving a 700 hp. automobile on a tight track and (ii) the better reflexes, ability to think coolly, and ability to plan a line? On the day, for two pro drivers, it comes down to fractions of a second. Same with skis: Which are better, Rossignol or Vokl slalom skis? The winners in a given race may be separated by hundreds of a second in any given race, corresponding to a few inches over a long bumpy track, and they may well trade places in the next race, or blow out completely. Would anyone want to argue that a give ski is simply a better ski, under the circumstances?

In the case of the MAs, there's one added factor: we have no way to subject the system to objective engineering tests the way we can with cars or skis. So it seems like a supremely vain endeavor to try to assess the contributions of the different systems the way we might, in principle, be able to do with the cars or skis if we had some assurance that the racers were absolutely identical in all technical abilities. Since we can't, it seems particularly futile to look for diffferences in the systems, when there is so much reason that the difference in practitioners will be the overwhelming factor, just as with cars, or skis, or...

wow!! How can anyone follow THAT. I think you are right on, great analogy sir! (and I thought that before I realized it was your post! )

 

[Shaderon]

It's almost impossible to follow that!

I think a major contributor would be how fast each person can think and how fast their reactions are. Also frame of mind would count for a lot, for instance, in a competition setting, person A might not want to hurt the other, while Person B might not care if they hurt the first as long as they get the points. Put the same two people on the street and you might get a different outcome altogether, Person A, may have a stronger animal instinct than Person B and be more vicious, or one of them might have distractions, e.g. loved ones nearby, which could improve or hinder their reactions.

I personally think that the quality of training that each person gets is a huge part of it, after all, if I fought a 4th Dan black belt, I was savage and they were half hearted, I might hurt them in some way but I probably wouldn't win, but put two people of roughly equal technical ability together and to me it becomes a battle of willpower and the mind in general.

 

[gixxershane]

Here's an extreme analogy: we know that a Porsche Turbo is a more powerful car than an Acura sedan (right off, a different situation from the MA scene, but stay with me). Take two people off the street, plunk them in the drivers' seat of each car, and set them off around a track to finish a set of laps . Who will win? The guy in the Porsche, obviously, right? Wrong, because if the guy in the Porsche doesn't know how to drive a super-high-performance car, one moreover with the wicked oversteer that Porsches are notorious for, there's a good chance that the Porche will never make it even once around the track; certainly if the Acura is driven by a very skilled racing driver and the Porsche by someone who's never driven anything but Subaru Outbacks before, there's no way I'd want to bet good money on the Porsche.

Now adjust that situation for the following: there's no sound way to establish the same kind of comparison between two MAs that we have for the relative performances of the Porsche and the Acura. All MAs correspond to Formula 1 cars (from different racing car manufacturers) in principle. Now take the same two guys and put them in two Formula 1s chosen at random. Who's going to win?

Now take two people off the street, about whom we know nothing, and put them in the Formula 1s. Surely it's evident that the winner will be the person who has (i) the best training at driving a 700 hp. automobile on a tight track and (ii) the better reflexes, ability to think coolly, and ability to plan a line? On the day, for two pro drivers, it comes down to fractions of a second. Same with skis: Which are better, Rossignol or Vokl slalom skis? The winners in a given race may be separated by hundreds of a second in any given race, corresponding to a few inches over a long bumpy track, and they may well trade places in the next race, or blow out completely. Would anyone want to argue that a give ski is simply a better ski, under the circumstances?

In the case of the MAs, there's one added factor: we have no way to subject the system to objective engineering tests the way we can with cars or skis. So it seems like a supremely vain endeavor to try to assess the contributions of the different systems the way we might, in principle, be able to do with the cars or skis if we had some assurance that the racers were absolutely identical in all technical abilities. Since we can't, it seems particularly futile to look for diffferences in the systems, when there is so much reason that the difference in practitioners will be the overwhelming factor, just as with cars, or skis, or...

some one likes racing...

i think it boils down to who trains harder, against people that are better than them selfs.. the person with more experience i would have to say has the edge ..

a martial artist with 6+ years training vs some one with no training i would give the edgeto the martial artist in this situation..

Martial artist vs martial artist, i think there are too many varyiables to even consider an out come of style vs style.. in this instance i would have to say that the person better conditioned and prepared for the given situation would prevail..

 

[matt.m]

Ok,

If you take two white belts with two months experience only one a striker the other a grappler then you will see that it will be whomever draws on past life experiences.

I think that a BJJ fellow would be creamed in olympic style sparring and vice versa.

It all comes down to who can adapt to a situation, just a thought. I don't believe there is a better or worse art, the practitioner and the art are just products.

 

[Brad Dunne]

There's an old saying.........."It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog".

 

[Andrew Green]

Training methods are the important piece, not style.

Not too long into the UFC's beginnings wrestlers showed up and started to dominate. Then the kickboxers learnt some wrestling and guard work and where able to put up a fight.

As of late, most of the Champions have not been BJJ fighters, but everyone one of them trains in similar ways, and every one of them does ground fighinting and submissions, even if they don't use submissions in there fights.

If your training doesn't match your goals, you are not going to get the results you want. If your goals are related to no/limited rules fights with trained fighters in a semi-controlled environment, and what youa re doing is not along the same lines of what MMA competitors are doing you're likely going to get beat if you try to test your skills. If your goal is to get to the Olympics, Training in BJJ is not going to get you there. Boxing, wrestling, fencing or Judo would be better choices.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

emphatically and without exception, the people. style is largely irrelevant compared to the dedication of the student and the skill of the teacher.

 

[CoryKS]

( (effectiveness of style + personal skill + fortunate circumstances beyond your control ) - (effectiveness of opponent's style + opponent's skill + unfortunate circumstances beyond your control ) ) = chance of success

Or something like that.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Not much I can say that has not been said already. It is the person and hiss willingness to adapt to the situation and his motivation/determination to win that should provide the outcome

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

Before we can state which is of more importance, the Art or the Person, we have to actually examine what those involve. We also have to factor in a third factor - The Instructor.

First off the Person:

This refers to the individuals natural traits and abilities prior to any training.
This includes

• Level of natural aggression
• Ruthlessness/or lack thereof
• Capacity for learning
• Basic survival instincts
• What Am I Fighting for?

1. Natural Aggression
Pretty straightforward. How aggressive are you? How willing to attack? To be honest I think thats traits such as aggression and viciousness tend to be fairly over-rated, as they tend to often be lacking in focus.

2. Ruthlessness/or lack thereof
How willing are you to do what needs to be done? This is essentially what aggression should evolve into. The abilty to attack in a focused powerful manner, wasting neither time nor energy. Likewise the ability to endure whatever pain or damage is neccessary to achieve your goal.

3.Capacity for Learning
How fast will you learn from teacher, or from fights, or from situations that occur? How long will it take for you pick to up and store the relevant info from what happens?

4. Basic Survival Instincts
Do you know whats in your best interests? When its best to talk things down, when its best to bluff, when to fight, and when to run like hell?

5. What Am I Fighting For?
Do you know why you're in this fight? Whats at stake when you get in a fight, and more importantly, do you UNDERSTAND whats at stake?
More often than not, people do not understand whats at stake until too late. Just the way of things.


Second the Art

This refers to physical and metal abilites enhanced or created though training.
This means that not only it create specific abilties of its own, it can also affect or focus the traits from the individual
Abilities created include

• Skill/or lack thereof
• Fitness and Conditioning
• Discipline
• Adaptabilty

1 Skill/or lack thereof
This refers to the particular delivery system that the training creates. To clarify delivery system: The abilty to position yourself where you can do the most damage, to time your strikes right, to actually DELIVER the techniques you've trained in. This isn't knowing which piece in chess could take the king, its knowing how to put that piece in the right place first.

2. Fitness and Conditioning
Your bodies ability to perform the jobs you give it and the tasks you ask of it. Strength, speed, flexibilty, endurance. All the skill in the world is useless if you're too busy wheezing to use it.

3. Discipline
This is closely linked to ruthlessness, and is often what evolves aggression into ruthlessness. Your ability to tekk your body what to do, whether it likes it or not.

4. Adaptability
How capable are you of moving outside your frame of reference, or your comfort zone? How well can apply your training outside of a training situation?

Third, The Instructor

This is the glue that sticks the Art and the Person together. Its their job to take the traits a person has naturally, and mix them with the traits from training, to ensure that it makes the most of the materials at hand.
The Instructor affects every attribute of the Art and The Person, ensuring whether each one is made the most of or wasted, if the neccessary traits are enhanced via training, or if they're simply ignored.

So its clearly damn obvious that the importance lies not on the Art, The Person, or The Instructor, but on the mix of all three together.
Basic logic alone should prove that, after all, one factor alone doesn't decide a situation, its the combination of all factors.

 

[Kacey]

First off, let me say, exile, that that was a great analogy, and I would happily rep you for it if the system would let me... but I can't right now, so I will settle for public recognition!

emphatically and without exception, the people. style is largely irrelevant compared to the dedication of the student and the skill of the teacher.

I agree. When I started TKD, I knew nothing about any MA except what I'd seen in a few movies. I was lucky enough to find a good instructor, without which I'd have been unlikely to continue... and then I'd have no training. No matter how "complete" the style, it only works if you use it - which requires training - which, in turn, requires a dedicated student and a competent instructor, as bushidomartialarts beat me to saying.

The problem with style vs. style debates, IMHO, and as has been said by others, is that there are too many subjective and/or unquantifiable variables involved to get an objective response. Aside from the style question - what constitutes "winning"? Having your hand raised in a ring? Being able to walk out of the ring in one piece? Or surviving in a street encounter? This adds another variable.

 

[kidswarrior]

Now take two people off the street, about whom we know nothing, and put them in the Formula 1s. Surely it's evident that the winner will be the person who has (i) the best training at driving a 700 hp. automobile on a tight track and (ii) the better reflexes, ability to think coolly, and ability to plan a line? On the day, for two pro drivers, it comes down to fractions of a second.

In the case of the MAs, there's one added factor: we have no way to subject the system to objective engineering tests the way we can with cars or skis.

Another nailed-it-on-the-head post, exile. Been trying to give you rep points for several days, but system won't let me for now. But be assured, this post is ubercool!! :ubercool:

BTW, before I read your entry, I was going to say something simplistic like, Systems don't fight, people fight. Oh, well....:uhyeah:

 

[still learning]

Hello, We are like to follow the success if others, Cane made Kung-fu popular,the people like Chuch Noris, Benny the jet...made Karate or Martial arts more popular. Bruce Lees art change the thinking of many martial artist. BJJ has brought out grappling arts.

Today it is Mix martial arts. ....tommorrow who knows what will become popular.

It is human nature to copy or want to be the best or be a part of the best of most things in life. (like Tiger woods) everyone wants to be like him, (if you like golfing).

It is in our human nature and instincts to be with strongest and the best.
Survival of the species.

As for the best martial arts.....each one has it own uniquesness to them...if you work at making it the best for you? ...than this is all you may need. ON the streets? What you learn works! ....then it works! ...

IN the ring of martial art fighting...there is always a winner and a loser...NOT because of there style or art. Because one was a little bit smarter and maybe a little bit stronger, and knows how to fight there fight. ..........Aloha

 

[flashlock]

I think I know where this thread developed from--and I'd like the chance to touch on it again, with less of a X vs X mindset--i.e., instead of trying to prove something, just to be open and explore the issue, which I think is valid and, if not answerable, we can make some educated guesses about!

I think the race car analogy is a little misleading in its simplicity. A more apt car analogy would be if the two racing cars were identical, and we were debating not the car, but the STYLE of driving.

Because we're talking about how humans fight optimally. We have 2 legs, 2 arms, and a head stuck on a torso, and they move around a lot. That's what we have to work with.

Ever see cats fight? It's a lot of violent batting, the smaller one usually crouches low and, if attacked, hugs its attacker and kicks at the "opponent's" belly with it claws to disembowl it. That's the ultimate system for a cat because over millions of years of evolution, that's what allowed most cats to survive.

The martial art you are practicing now is vastly different than it was 300 years ago. The training is different. The attacks are different. The Japanese, for example (according to Steven K. Hayes) did not know about the western fist (due to the guantlets they wore with their samurai armor) until only very recently. I bet your art has incorporated much more grappling after the UFC.

I think one major problem is that MA is so broad. We have Tai Chi on one side, and Navy SEAL training on the other. One system is great one on one (supposedly), but is terrible if you add other variables (weapons, multiple opponents, etc.

Look at how the UFC, even with its artificial rules, has EVOLVED. It used to be strikers vs grapplers. Now you can't be in the UFC unless you are proficient at... BOTH. It was like the two "systems" melded... they both evolved.

If you're looking for absolutes, you won't find them, but what you can find are trends, anectodal evidence, and educated guesses.

The first thing I looked at was the great WWII Alies, specifically the book _Get Tough_, which was the WWII H2H combat manual. I went to that book because that "system" has the most documented kills of any system. It was designed to beat the Japanese in H2H combat, to COUNTER their training with a simple, brutal anidote--and it worked! If anyone has the figures, please let me know--I've only heard it was the most documented kills. Check the book out, regardless! It's a riot!

Secondly, I really looked into Bruce Lee who basically invented Mixed MA (don't belive me? Read His Tao, and other writings--he was 30 years ahead of his time!). He was open to everything that... WORKED. He was an iconoclast who held no certificates. Throw out your most sacred ideas and techniques if you couldn't get them to work in practice. Do not "stick" to anything... it's a cliche but... "Be like water!"

The Japanese did not adapt. They "stuck" to their old ways and paid the price vs the inexperienced (but inventive) allies (I'm just refering to H2H combat). Did you guys see that UFC match when Hoyce Grace got pounded into submission by Hughes? Or when Hughes, the grappler, couldn't penetrate St. Pierre's strikes?

They both lost because they couldn't adapt... because they were STUCK to their system.

I believe the best system is... NO SYSTEM. You could have your hands tied behind your back vs someone twice your size, and you can win--if you go into that cat mode and let your killer instinct out (because we're human, we have to train for years to do this, alas--sometimes adrenalin helps--people with no training defeat people who are armed with knifes all the time (see Hock Hockheim's website!).

NO SYSTEM, being like water, means you do the simplist thing to achieve your aim, regardless of the conditions, you flow. So, you need to know all ranges: striking, grappling, multiple opponents, knives, guns, etc. You have to know restraints without hurting people, and you have to know how to kill someone in seconds.

Because we are modern people, we cannot dedicate 10 hours a day, 7 days a week to training unless that is our profession (soldier, or trainer of soldiers). Learn and master simple moves.

BJJ has been mentioned--it is very irksome because it is so good and so simple--and what's even more annoying, the UFC rules DO benefit grapplers, giving it even more of an advantage! It is good in large part, because it is simple with basic goals (the major positions you are constantly going for from mount to guard--there's not that many moves). Still, it takes years to master (the rules of chess are relatively simple, yet leads to complexity beyond human comprehension).

After a lot of thought--full of holes and ignorance, though it is--that is my conclusion. As writer's say, "Murder your darlings," meaning the little things in your writing that are cute and you like, but don't help the overall work. Murder your system! Attack it. Examine every technique with a critical eye. Could you REALLY trap that jab? Are you really fast enough to do that hammerfist vs a resisting attacker?

My first instinct is to not belive anything any "master" says. They all say different things, and they can't all be right. Think for yourself, test things out. You have to find the 10- 15 techniques that work for you, that are probable, and practice them over and over. Don't conform to a system.

So the winner is no system vs systems (strikers AND grapplers).

Sorry for such a long post, hope someone gets something out of it. (Yes, this contradicts my previous post--I listened to you guys and... adapted!)

Thanks.

 

[MJS]

Before we can state which is of more importance, the Art or the Person, we have to actually examine what those involve. We also have to factor in a third factor - The Instructor.

First off the Person:

This refers to the individuals natural traits and abilities prior to any training.
This includes

• Level of natural aggression
• Ruthlessness/or lack thereof
• Capacity for learning
• Basic survival instincts
• What Am I Fighting for?

1. Natural Aggression
Pretty straightforward. How aggressive are you? How willing to attack? To be honest I think thats traits such as aggression and viciousness tend to be fairly over-rated, as they tend to often be lacking in focus.

2. Ruthlessness/or lack thereof
How willing are you to do what needs to be done? This is essentially what aggression should evolve into. The abilty to attack in a focused powerful manner, wasting neither time nor energy. Likewise the ability to endure whatever pain or damage is neccessary to achieve your goal.

3.Capacity for Learning
How fast will you learn from teacher, or from fights, or from situations that occur? How long will it take for you pick to up and store the relevant info from what happens?

4. Basic Survival Instincts
Do you know whats in your best interests? When its best to talk things down, when its best to bluff, when to fight, and when to run like hell?

5. What Am I Fighting For?
Do you know why you're in this fight? Whats at stake when you get in a fight, and more importantly, do you UNDERSTAND whats at stake?
More often than not, people do not understand whats at stake until too late. Just the way of things.


Second the Art

This refers to physical and metal abilites enhanced or created though training.
This means that not only it create specific abilties of its own, it can also affect or focus the traits from the individual
Abilities created include

• Skill/or lack thereof
• Fitness and Conditioning
• Discipline
• Adaptabilty

1 Skill/or lack thereof
This refers to the particular delivery system that the training creates. To clarify delivery system: The abilty to position yourself where you can do the most damage, to time your strikes right, to actually DELIVER the techniques you've trained in. This isn't knowing which piece in chess could take the king, its knowing how to put that piece in the right place first.

2. Fitness and Conditioning
Your bodies ability to perform the jobs you give it and the tasks you ask of it. Strength, speed, flexibilty, endurance. All the skill in the world is useless if you're too busy wheezing to use it.

3. Discipline
This is closely linked to ruthlessness, and is often what evolves aggression into ruthlessness. Your ability to tekk your body what to do, whether it likes it or not.

4. Adaptability
How capable are you of moving outside your frame of reference, or your comfort zone? How well can apply your training outside of a training situation?

Third, The Instructor

This is the glue that sticks the Art and the Person together. Its their job to take the traits a person has naturally, and mix them with the traits from training, to ensure that it makes the most of the materials at hand.
The Instructor affects every attribute of the Art and The Person, ensuring whether each one is made the most of or wasted, if the neccessary traits are enhanced via training, or if they're simply ignored.

So its clearly damn obvious that the importance lies not on the Art, The Person, or The Instructor, but on the mix of all three together.
Basic logic alone should prove that, after all, one factor alone doesn't decide a situation, its the combination of all factors.

Great post and this certainly brings up alot of good points.

 

[MJS]

I think I know where this thread developed from--and I'd like the chance to touch on it again, with less of a X vs X mindset--i.e., instead of trying to prove something, just to be open and explore the issue, which I think is valid and, if not answerable, we can make some educated guesses about!

I figured rather than sidetrack that other thread anymore than it already was, I'd start a new thread. So far we have a good thread going.

I think the race car analogy is a little misleading in its simplicity. A more apt car analogy would be if the two racing cars were identical, and we were debating not the car, but the STYLE of driving.

Identical for ring purposes, that I can see, but identical in real life...just doesnt happen like that. The race car analogy was set up, as far as I can tell, to talk about the drivers, not the cars per se. Depending on how one can drive the car would determine the outcome.

Sorry for such a long post, hope someone gets something out of it. (Yes, this contradicts my previous post--I listened to you guys and... adapted!)

Thanks.

 

[exile]

The race car analogy was set up, as far as I can tell, to talk about the drivers, not the cars per se. Depending on how one can drive the car would determine the outcome.

Mike, that's exactly what I'd intended when I constructed that analogy. What I was trying to get at was that even in a situation in which there are demonstrable engineering differences between vehicles that seem to give an overwhelming advantage to one of the vehicles, the role of the operator of that vehicle is so central to the performance of the vehicle under full-bore racing conditions that the skills of the operator can completely `upend' the inherent performance advantages of the more powerful, racing-dedicated vehicle. The next part of my argument is that in the real world, unlike the automotive racing scenario, we do not have that kind of evidence of `design advantage' for one or another MA under the specific combat conditions envisaged by the creators of the various MAs. The point is that, if even in the Porsche Turbo vs. Acura sedan scenario, a wide difference in technical racing skills can lead to an upset by the Acura, how much more is this sort of `driver-dependency' of the outcome going to hold when the built-in performance specs of the two vehicles are that much closer (the two Formala 1 cars part of the analogy).

Now you can bring in the `style of driving' aspect of the analogy as flashlock did, but so far as I can see, it only makes sense to talk about style of driving as a factor if you assume that (i) the cars themselves are comparable, and (ii) the drivers themselves are for all practical purposes equally good. What flashlock seems to be saying is that under these circumstances, one `style of driving' will defeat another `style of driving' consistently in all racing conditions. But what could possibly count as evidence for this position, at least in the domain of MAs? Just what kind of sample is available of people of demonstrably equal competence using a sufficiently varied set of pairs of martial arts under the conditions that each member of each pair was developed to be effective in? What I'm saying is, there will be so much difficulty in demonstrating the parity of skill between the combatants required to attribute any difference in results to properties of the `arts themselves' that you simply do not have, and in practice cannot get, the data necessary to back up any particular claims about relative effectiveness. Since even a small difference in skill will, in the case of, say, roughly equally powerful race cars, very likely translate a decisive victory for the more skilled driver (apart from luck issues), you really can't conclude anything about the relative quality of the cars unless there's very, very little difference in skill between the drivers. Now, translating that back to the MA domain, how are you going to demonstrate that equality of skill? How do you set up a baseline? What experimental protocols are you going to use?

My point is that, until you have a guarantee of sufficiently comparable skill levels on the part of MAists, you cannot plausibly identify differences in outcomes as a result of the `style of driving' (i.e., the particular MA). I would venture to guess that no one has ever come close to devising a way to test the relative skill level of two MA fighters who are to test their arts against each other under streetfight conditions, with `skill' defined relative to those conditions. And I am dead certain that no one has ever actually carried out such a test for a statistically significant number of fighters. If this is true, how can anyone possibly claim to have any evidence whatever that bears on the superiority of one or another `style of driving', given that, as I noted, only when the skill level between the contestants is sufficiently small can different outcomes be confidently attributed to the difference in the driving style?

This is why I think that differences in skill level will drown out differences in style effectiveness (even if the latter kind of difference actually existed in the abstract, which I see no reason to grant in advance) to such an extent that you are much better off trying to improve skill level of the practitioner than worry about the (experimentally unmeasured and maybe unmeasurable) effectiveness level of the art.

 

[flashlock]

Let's look at this another way, my friends. Please be honest: make a list of the top 3 styles you would most dread facing in a life and death situation. No need to explain why a certain style is on your list, no need to belittle any other style... I'm wondering what we'll all put down, and what we'll all leave off because it's not "scary".

Here's mine:

1. BJJ
2. JKD Concepts
3. Muy Thai Boxing

(You see where this is going...?)