What's your opinion

[scottnshelly]

i've been reading on this forum for a couple weeks and i've seen a lot of people bashing combined styles.

 

I was just wondering if this pertains to everyone that tells his/her students that there are superior moves from a variety of different styles and then teaches them, or if this is only against those that try to put a label on what they are teaching.

 

for instance, i've been to classes that will teach a superior Aikido throw. although no one in the class is certified in Aikido, we recognize that some of their stuff is superior.

 

there are also those that will put a label and teach say three or four different styles combined.

 

i hope this is clear enough to understand. let me know if not and i'll try to elaborate.

[Shorinryu Sensei]

I don't recall seeing any bashing of MMA's anywhere on the forum, but I don't read all of the catagories either.

 

Anyway, the one problem I have with "some" of the MMA's schools is that the inbstructor has a brown belt in one style, a blue in another...and maybe a couple of 1st degree black belts in a couple of others. With this background, they think they know enough to start their own school and system.

 

What they fail to realize is, it takes many...MANY years to learn and perfect all of the subtle aspects of an art. A brown or low black belt is just a good foundation of the BASICS of an art...know mastery of that art.

 

And learninga few moves from one system...and a few from another...that's just not good. Techniques from systems, such as I do..flow one technique into another and build upon each other. You won't get that by "hodge-podging" a little of this system..and a little of that system together to make a "new" system.

[scottnshelly]

The class that attended the longest wasn't an old style like Moo Duk Kwan Tae Kwon Do or anything. we just called it Tae Kwon Do, but it was very Americanized. We didn't have any lineage or anything, so we learned from a variety of different styles. i don't claim to be trained in Judo, or Kung Fu, but i know how to do a Judo throw and maybe a Kung Fu kick or two. My instructor was skilled in a variety of styles, but wasn't one of those Dan traders or lowly ranked students. He just learned from a lot of different instructors. We would often have other instructors from other styles come in and give demonstrations and teach us a few things. so i don't consider what i learned a hodge-podge style, but it's not a very ancient style either. just the stuff that works best.

[GhostlySykanRyu]

I see nothing wrong with using techniques from many styles (obviously) , so long that they work well for the person using them.

 

As for instructors teaching in that manner, that's really not for me to say.

[47MartialMan]

I can see where a new member can get that interpetation.

[Shane]

I dont see nothing wrong with mixing it up. I come from a school of Mixed Arts and we also had a traditional class. Both were awsome classes. Now this is my opinion, but I feel that mixing it up makes for a more well rounded individual and I keep reading about how you have to master one art before doing this or that. Well I dont believe that at all I believe you have to master the techniques within the art or style and you can do that in a traditional art or Mixed Martial Art. I actually find it easier to do it in a Mixed Art that does not spend so much time training on forms or one that does not train forms at all due to the fact that you are working the realistic technique over and over in a realistic way rather that working it in the form of a dance for half of the class. Anyways this is my opinion

[foreveryoung001]

Just a thought. When I was learning Spanish, years ago in high school, my teacher told me that a person can not become truly bi-lingual unless they learn both languages before a certain age. I don't remember what age, but it was young.... 4 or 5 if I recall. If they learn any language after that, they can become fluent, but their mind will always translate what is said back to their orginal language.

 

I have never followed up on that, to find out if it was true, but it made some sense to me. I have always wondered about the logistics of training in more than one art to early, but with the lagnuage theory in mind, I am now wondering if it might not be better to learn both from the begining.

 

There is a topic in the "general MA" thread about hips, and the discussion came around to whether pivoting your base foot on a side kick is a common characteristic. In TKD we do pivot, and after almost 20 years, I just tried to throw a side kick without pivoting, but I am having a hard time forcing my body not to do it, yet there are styles out there where they do not pivot, so I know it is possible. Perhaps if I had learned to throw a side kick both ways from the beginning, I would not have this difficulty.

 

Just a thought.....

[Shorin Ryuu]

Hold on, let me get out my soapbox here.

 

*clunk*

 

Alright. Here's what I think is wrong with a lot of these arguments: You all focus on learning techniques. What about the principles? The only reason for a style in the first place is to systematically present techniques so that people can understand them AND the principles behind them. You can learn an umpteen number of devestating techniques from a multitude of styles. You have to know how and why and what the implications the technique has for all of your training as a whole. "Mastering the technique" involves much more than being able to apply it within a fraction of a section. That just means you are good at imitation.

 

I'm not saying you can't learn from other systems. I do, and have been encouraged to do so. In true traditional karate, all the great masters did (despite what Bruce Lee said). It is when people with a collection of kata and techniques from various styles without the necessary critical depth in any one of them try to package something together in a style. I don't care about the label. They could call it "Bob's Fightin' Studio". What bothers me is that a lot of them only teach techniques. Techniques in a fight may help you, but understanding the principles behind them will save you. There are too many people that make learning a large number of techniques in a number of styles and claim that they are superior because they multi-train, but they are only collectors of technique.

 

 

 

I'm rambling, so let me explain this better: When you build the frame of a house, you use various materials. I'm going to simplify this (because I don't know too much in detail about how to build a house) by saying we're going to build a house only out of wood (limitation is only in the example).

 

Every piece of wood represents a martial arts technique. Some are short, some are long. Some are thick, some are thin. They are not all the same kind of wood, and some are even composites of different kinds of wood. All of them represent a long time spent learning the arts.

 

If you only collect the pieces of wood together simply because they seem more effective than others, than you are building a house by simply stacking the pieces on top of each other. A strong wind could collapse your house.

 

If you have a strong base in one style (you could even call it a foundation...), then you understand the optimum engineering of the different pieces to form walls, a proper frame, and a roof.

 

Now, what house would you want to live in?

[Shane]

Shorin Ryuu

 

Remind me not to contract with you to build my house okay.

 

Just Kidding

 

Everyone has their own way of thinking and doing things. I can see where your coming from but I also see where others are coming from when it comes to this.

 

You could take a traditional art and get nothing out of it, if you have a bad instructor.

 

You could take a Mixed Art and get everything out of it if you have good instructor.

 

It can work both ways

 

So Im going to say it really doesnt matter that much as long as you have a good instructor that understands all aspects of the techniques that are being taught and is good at passing that knowledge to his/her students. I'm sure a lot of people will agree on this, that a good instructor can make or break it.

[Shorin Ryuu]

Yes, I understand.

 

Here is the true crux of the issue:

 

What I'm saying is that a good true traditional style in my opinion generates by far a lot more good instructors than bad. One advantage (I'm not saying there are disadvantages) of a hierarchy of some sorts (I'm not even referring to how it is administered per se) is that if it is doing its job, then there is actual quality control in instructors.

 

That is why I'm an advocate of them.

 

I understand that there are some people, especially in the military, who don't have the luxury of studying in one style, let alone one teacher within that style. I'm one of them. I've just been re-assigned to California two months ago, will move again in a year, will be assigned to Texas, will move again in a year. Fortunately (relatively), I've found two schools in my specific style that I can train in (although the drive is rather long). The quality is still very high because standards are maintained.

 

Once again, I'm not saying its impossible to have a good teacher who hasn't trained in many styles. Like I said before, all the old Okinawan masters did, and for that matter, every instructor that I've had has cross-trained before.

 

Returning to the crux of the matter: Quality control.