Treebranch Posted December 16, 2003 Posted December 16, 2003 Well I studied art and I am an artist. So we had to learn the foundations of drawing before we could paint. The foundations are the most important, because without that you are just blindly doing things. So once you master the foundation of art you can then go and be creative or more complex. What some people think as complex is really very simple. For example; in drawing you have the cone, the sphere, the pyramid, the cylinder, and the box. If you can master to draw and paint those in any angle and light, learning to draw and paint the figure is going to be a lot easier. With practice, depending on what you want to draw or paint, that when you start getting good. Then it just starts to become second nature. If I never had that foundation it would have taken me a lifetime to figure it out. So basically I think we are getting at the same thing here. "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
Shorinryu Sensei Posted December 16, 2003 Posted December 16, 2003 Is there such a thing as a "complete art"? Yes, I think so, but it depends on what YOU consider complete I think. Everybody is going to define that differently. I'm quoting myself here from my first post on this thread. "Complete is going to be defined by everybody differently. What is complete to me, may not be for you. For example, we have no emphasis on tournaments, or K1 type competition...does that make us incomplete? No, just for us, there is no emphasis on that particular aspect. We don't break boards or bricks..does that make us incomplete? No, just wise enough to know that breaking boards/bricks proves nothing (IMHO) and is for show. But does that make us incomplete as a system? No, it doesn't. Other systems consider tournaments of various sorts necessary...even mandatory. Are they complete? Yes, if the participant feels that what they are learning/doing fits them well, and is right for them. Does that make sense, or did I just muddle the waters some more? My nightly prayer..."Please, just let me win that PowerBall Jackpot just once. I'll prove to you that it won't change me!"
Treebranch Posted December 16, 2003 Posted December 16, 2003 Just because someone prefers one MA over the other doesn't mean it's complete. "It 's complete to me" doesn't work here. Does it cover many aspects of fighting? Does it cover all aspects of fighting and or combat? Complete for that Style of MA O.K., but compared to others how does it hold up? That's the question here. Not whether or not it suits the individual. "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
Shorinryu Sensei Posted December 16, 2003 Posted December 16, 2003 Just because someone prefers one MA over the other doesn't mean it's complete. "It 's complete to me" doesn't work here. Does it cover many aspects of fighting? Does it cover all aspects of fighting and or combat? Complete for that Style of MA O.K., but compared to others how does it hold up? That's the question here. Not whether or not it suits the individual. I disagree. My perception of a complete art will be different than yours. Who sets the standard for the definition of a complete art? You? Me? The sensei down the street? A magazine or book? Isn't it our own, personal perceptions and values that define that? My perception of a "complete" automobile will be different than yours. My conception of a beautiful woman will be different than yours. Religion...political party...abortion views..foods,.favorite colors...complete vacation spot...perfect place to live...I can go on and on, but you get my idea. How many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people in the world are, for example. students of ITF, WTF or some other TaeKwonDo organization? Since these people are taking that art form, many staying in it for years and getting at least one black belt...wouldn't you say that they consuider it a complete art? If not, why stay in it? The same goes for any system you'd care to mention. In reality, is ANY system really totally, 100% complete? No, of course not. But I believe it's a matter of perceptions, goals, values, and gut feelings that for each individual that if they are seeking an "complete martial art" that covers every criteria that they desire for one, then they have to find one that suits them and meets that criteria as best it can. I study old style Shorinryu (Orthodox). We have different levels of fighting, grappling, tuitte (locks), defenses against multiple opponents and weapons...yadda yadda yadda. Is it perfect and a complete art? Probably not in reality, but for me...it is. And until I find something better, I'm sticking with it. And in 29 years next month, I haven't found anything out there yet that I think is more complete and rounded. You might look at Shorinryu and say..."That's not a well rounded or complete art..they don't break boards or attend tournaments or push their people to do K1 type fighting."...so am I wrong? Are you right? My opinion anyway. My nightly prayer..."Please, just let me win that PowerBall Jackpot just once. I'll prove to you that it won't change me!"
Drunken Monkey Posted December 16, 2003 Posted December 16, 2003 okok changed my mind. how about 'comprehensive' as opposed to complete? as for the drawing and painting thing. there are those who don't need to learn the basics and pick up a paintbrush and churn out portraits whilst eating lunch.... i had a friend who had an amazing eye for colour. on the plate the colour would look dull and flat but the moment he dabbed it on it's intended location, you could never tell it wasn't there to begin with. ahhh, the good old times at sixth form.... post count is directly related to how much free time you have, not how intelligent you are."When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."
jeffrogers Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 Jerry love has a point. but unfortently not all arts do this. There is no Wing chun/Wertling style. So the person would have to do both seperate and then use his own mind and experience in training to mix it. To modify his stances in wing chun so he can sprawl, clinch or what not, and modify some his wreslting sanceses and hand postions for his wing chun work. but hey this why there is MMA. People already do that. Were they mix Muay thai, wrestling, BJJ, Boxing. then train for fighting show how to modify it so you can work it in for that situation. I agree with some one mentioned ealire that tthe art is complete depending what the person wants. If he wants to fight for self defense then he needs grappling and striking and weapons work and self defense scenerio work as well as alot of emotional and mental training to deal with thee adriniline dump and fear that comes with self defense sceneriros were you are going to be attacked. Youc an abe the best person in your gym in the world as far as techniques go. but if your fears get the best of you or the adrinilne can also make you sloppy and tense as hell. and mess up your techniaques. So y ou have to learn to control all that. If you want it for ring. Well Grapplinig and striking then. Don't need weapons training or training for eye gouges and what not. Unless some event your doing allowes you to do those. If you are on a questioni for spiritual enlgihtment through training in the martial arts. Maybe another art that it may not be complete as far as fighting but has alot of theroys good breathing excercises and would be complete for that person. Also I believe in taking what you like. You don't need every thing in one art. If you take teh stuff you like practice it until you are good at it or can make it work for you and use it in self defense or fgihting application. Then move on! you don't need to know every form every move everry technique of a style if you want to be a good fighter. Just some simple techniques work best. Mostly alot of moves don't work really well in fight applications. Mostly its the simple stuff that work. So if that is y our goal is to fight then you don't need alot of stuff. Now hoever for example you want to be a complete Shotokan fighter and martial artist. Then don't train in other stuff. Just do shotokan learn as much as you can in the art and be a good "shotokan" fighter and martial artist. but don't make you a good fighter over all. Because you get grapplers in there or some one from diffrent styles that you haven't faced and do techniques unfamiluar your going to have a harder time and probably get clocked especially by some one competing against other styles. Thats just my two cents. -Jeff
Treebranch Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 A complete art is one that covers all areas of physical combat. Boxing is boxing, Kickboxing is kickboxing, wrestling is wrestling. This are effective but are not complete realistic fighting systems. The whole what's complete for me may not be complete for you thing is just existential bull. If an art teaches weapons, tactics, ukemi, grappling, striking, groundfighting, etc... I would say most people would consider that a complete MA. So if an MA only teaches one or two aspects of this than it's not complete. Is it still effective? Sure it is. But effective and complete are different. Complete like how many pieces in a chess set, or a dozen is 12 not 10. Effective is subjective and depends on the individual. There are MA's that are more complete than others, it doesn't make them better. Better is subjective as well, complete is objective. I hope this clears things up a bit. If not, time is the best teacher. "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
jeffrogers Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 Although I see the point of your post. REaliity not all arts combine all t hose aspects. Some do. but then I have noticed that they are lacking knowledge of that aspect. For example I seen arts that have striking and weapons and tactics and such. They are okay and they do ground also. But I noticed the way they teach the ground they are lacking alot of knowledge on that subject as well as other arts that are okay in grappling but lack knowlege of striking so the striking aspect is weak. There for y ou may have a point. but I look for quality in training. So some can care for a paticular style. but i learned awhile ago to take what I like and what will make me by my own judgement a better fighter. There for you see quite a bit go to the MMA route. Were they seek the specialist in there field and learn the concepts from them. There for being far more rounded. Then going to a "complete" Art.
Treebranch Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 It depends on what your goal is. You're right not all arts combine those aspects of fighting, but the one's that do are in fact more complete than the one's that don't, yes? The training methods are the problem, not the MA with the exception of a few of course. "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
Sasori_Te Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 This whole thread This whole thread could be broken down as follows: Q: Is there such a thing as sweet tea? A: Yes .... here's a glass of my sweet tea. Q: Are you sure this is sweet tea? It doesn't taste very sweet to me. A: Yes, it's sweet. It tastes fine to me. In other words, it's all completely a matter of personal taste. You're definitely going to have to make up your own mind on this one. A block is a strike is a lock is a throw.
Recommended Posts