what makes a style a style?

[jarrod]

here's an issue that i've been thinking about for some time, & i'm interested in getting everyone's feedback, grapplers & others as well.

some grappling arts have a direct lineage just like any other martial art. jujitsu for instance. this was part of a samurai's military training, which later became available to a wider group through the advent of judo. judo & jujitsu have ranks, schools, teachers, etc.

folk wrestling styles have always been a little different, simply because it's exactly that--a folk art. there might be clubs or schools, & it might have been part of a military tradition as well. but it is first & foremost transmitted on the mats, in competitions, & even in backyards.

so the question i've been considering is this: at what point do you practice one style of wrestling as opposed to another? do you have to have extensive, formal training in a folk style of wrestling in order to lay claim to being a practicioner of it? or is it simply a matter of training & competing under that rule set?

it's my opinion that wrestling is wrestling, & in a sport context, the rules make the style. if you are a freestyle wrestler who starts competing in judo tournaments, guess what, you're a judoka. you may not have rank in judo, you may not have lineage to kano, & you may not have a right to teach judo, but you certainly "play judo" just like any other judoka. at the end of the day, you either have an understanding of how to leverage an opponent or you don't. everything else is just rules & costumes.

please share any thoughts,

jf

 

[Hyper_Shadow]

I suppose it would depend on the origins of whatever it was that you were practising that would dictate it. Take for example most karate 'styles'. Most actually originate (and I say most as a generalisiation) from okinawa and three villages primarily in okinawa; shuri, naha and tomari. So respectively the original styles were named after the villages, shuri-te, naha-te and tomari-te. These in turn fall under Okinawan Tode. Down from these you have the variations that individuals then worked on and moulded to themselves. Then they fed their egos and went round gaining popularity and as such the 'style' itself gains definition. And so on etc.

Pretty much the thing that defines a 'style' is gonna be where it came from and who messed with the original material enough to completely mutate it from its orginal concept.

 

[jarrod]

i think you are largely correct. however, there's a reason i put this under grappling. i think most wrestling arts are folk arts, untraceable to a founding figure. therefore, origins are less important than in something like karate.

one of the things that has me thinking about this lately is i've been researching cornish wrestling. i'm not from cornwall, nobody has taught me cornish wrestling, i'm just sort of figuring things out for myself out of books. so, if i train, practice, or compete under cornish wrestling rules using techniques i've gathered from my research, can i legitimately claim cornish wrestling as a style that i train?

i think so. not because i'm greedy to add another style to my martial arts resume, but because i think to not include it would be a disservice to a fascinating art that is in danger of dying out. if i use an under-heave in a judo tournament (a tech i picked up from cornish that doesn't exist in judo) shouldn't i give credit where credit is due?

this is mostly an academic exercise, but i think it's a point worth considering.

jf

 

[lklawson]

With wrestling styles, part of it also has to to with intent. Yes, "rules" make the style but intent to practice a style does too. If some form of hypothetical Jacket Wrestling independently evolved in Smogaria with rules and constume essentailly the same as, say, Judo, that doesn't make Smogarian Wrestling into Judo (or vice versa).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[jarrod]

that's an interesting point. could you explain a little bit more what you mean by intent?

the other thing is, no two wrestling styles have ever evolved independently that had both identical rules & techniques. at least not to my knowledge. judo is also an exception to other wrestling styles: it was adapted from a military art practiced by a warrior-aristocracy, has a traceable founder, & has always existed under a governing body.

jf

 

[lklawson]

that's an interesting point. could you explain a little bit more what you mean by intent?

Well, to make it more basic than it deserves, if you're not trying to practice Judo then, in a very real way, you're not doing judo even if it looks exactly the same to an outside observer. By the same token, if you are, specifically, trying to practice Judo then, in a equally real way, even if you are making some basic or foundational errors, you can still be said to be practicing Judo.

As another way of presenting it, "intent" is why BJJ is not Judo despite being derived almost exclusively from Judo. They're specifically trying to not be Judo, but something else instead (BJJ).

Same with Sombo. Despite having a significant fraction of Sombo source from Judo, they're not trying to do Judo, they're trying to do something unique: Sombo.

the other thing is, no two wrestling styles have ever evolved independently that had both identical rules & techniques. at least not to my knowledge.

Of course not. I created a hypothetical wrestling style in a fictitious nation (Smogaria) to illustrate a point. That point being, that even if they look the same, the fact that they developed independently and, through a process of parallel evolution, ended up looking essentially the same, they're still "different" by virtue of independent lineage and no specific intent to tie to eachother. In that this case, though I agree with the sentiment that "rules make the game," identical rules do not make (the fictitious) "Smogarian Wrestling" Judo.

In illustration, it has sometimes been said that late 19th C. Catch-as-Catch-Can wrestling (with various elements of Lancashire Catch) is essentially the same as certain enterpretations of no-gi BJJ (I'm not arguing the truth here, let's just assume that the statement is more or less true for certain sub-sets of each). Is BJJ, therefore, nothing more that CaCC? Of course not. BJJ is BJJ and CaCC is CaCC. They just happen to look similar sometimes.

Intent matters.

Clear as mud?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[jarrod]

Well, to make it more basic than it deserves, if you're not trying to practice Judo then, in a very real way, you're not doing judo even if it looks exactly the same to an outside observer. By the same token, if you are, specifically, trying to practice Judo then, in a equally real way, even if you are making some basic or foundational errors, you can still be said to be practicing Judo.

As another way of presenting it, "intent" is why BJJ is not Judo despite being derived almost exclusively from Judo. They're specifically trying to not be Judo, but something else instead (BJJ).

Same with Sombo. Despite having a significant fraction of Sombo source from Judo, they're not trying to do Judo, they're trying to do something unique: Sombo.

makes perfect sense, thanks for clarifying.

Of course not. I created a hypothetical wrestling style in a fictitious nation (Smogaria) to illustrate a point. That point being, that even if they look the same, the fact that they developed independently and, through a process of parallel evolution, ended up looking essentially the same, they're still "different" by virtue of independent lineage and no specific intent to tie to eachother. In that this case, though I agree with the sentiment that "rules make the game," identical rules do not make (the fictitious) "Smogarian Wrestling" Judo.

so, where can i learn more about smogarian wrestling? i did a quick google search & couldn't find anything.

In illustration, it has sometimes been said that late 19th C. Catch-as-Catch-Can wrestling (with various elements of Lancashire Catch) is essentially the same as certain enterpretations of no-gi BJJ (I'm not arguing the truth here, let's just assume that the statement is more or less true for certain sub-sets of each). Is BJJ, therefore, nothing more that CaCC? Of course not. BJJ is BJJ and CaCC is CaCC. They just happen to look similar sometimes.

Intent matters.

Clear as mud?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

i was kidding about the smogarian thing, btw. i got your point.

well, bjj & judo are a little different since, like i mentioned, lineage & governing bodies have exist since their inception. with that in mind, your analogy is correct; a catch-ish bjjer is still doing bjj, since he learned from someone who traces back to helio. but what about styles that don't trace lineage?

i mentioned cornish wrestling, so i'll stick with that. cornwall & devonshire would often compete against each other in wrestling. they had slightly different styles of wrestling with slightly different rules. but the basic idea was to wear a jacket & throw your opponent. now when a they competed in each other's tournaments, what were they doing? to my mind, they were just wrestling. it's kind of like house-rules in monopoly. you might put money in free parking, you might not, but you're still playing monopoly.

jf

 

[lklawson]

i mentioned cornish wrestling, so i'll stick with that. cornwall & devonshire would often compete against each other in wrestling. they had slightly different styles of wrestling with slightly different rules. but the basic idea was to wear a jacket & throw your opponent. now when a they competed in each other's tournaments, what were they doing? to my mind, they were just wrestling. it's kind of like house-rules in monopoly. you might put money in free parking, you might not, but you're still playing monopoly.

I'd say that they were (most likely) each doing their own "style" of wrestling while yet competing against each other, similar to UFC1.



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[jarrod]

very similar to ufc 1, in fact. & now, mma is becoming a style unto itself!

jf

 

[Andrew Green]

I think the traditional idea of breaking down things into different "styles" is not going to really work for you, unless of course you are trying to follow a lineage and tradition.

But, what happens if you start approaching this problem from a different angle. What "style" of baseball do you play? The question, to me at least, doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Baseball is definedby a set of rules and objectives, not a technique set and lineage. If one day my friends and I where to stop playing by baseball rules and start playing by basketball rules, we would then be playing basketball.

The idea of styles within baseball don't make sense to me, there is no "Babe Ruth style", with clubs that focus on training his methods, his techniques and his philosophies, there is just baseball.

 

[jarrod]

that's a pretty good analogy for what i was trying to say. wrestling has always had more of a sporting element to it than other martial arts, which sort of sets it apart. you don't have to have lineage to james naismith to play basketball, you just have to play.

jf

 

[Aaron Fields]

The body is finite in the methods to gain mechanical advantage. Therefore other than marketing, the "style" seperation in grappling methodologies is based off rules, what you are wearing, and possible cultural context and the specialties that arise based off those.

Aaron Fields
Seattle Jujutsu Club,
Sea-Town Sombo
www.seattle-jujutsu.org