Erase Styles

[Emei89]

I often see alot of arguing between MAists about who's style is better or more effective, but even if one is better that doesn't garauntee that the person with the more effective style can beat the one with the lesser if the lesser is simply a better fighter. I think that people should stop catagorizing themselves as belonging to a particular style as a way to measure oneself against another. Sure it is a useful way to keep that system alive and to feel out what the other persons fighting might be like, but it is useless to compare schools if you are a poor fighter. I think we should erase the title of style to our different schools and all just call ourselves MAistss. Then, whenever describing a particular technique be able to say "This fighter used a strike from the Crane school." etc... This would also make people have to know alittle bit more about verious techniques, encouraging people to learn more and more MAs, developing more well-rounded students leaving room for only one comparison -- Who is simply a better fighter.

[Emei89]

C'mon people. Read then vote. Anyone? Please? (I'm lonely.....)

[Shorin Ryuu]

I don't believe there is one best style. However, I honestly can't believe "all styles are created equal". I think the most important function of an organization if there is going to be one is to provide "quality control" and to facilitate the learning process. Styles aren't perfect, and I know in the case of karate, they are a relatively new thing. However, you can not underestimate the individuality of the dojo per se and the benefit that experienced teachers can bring. I don't believe you have to rigidly train only one way and feel it is beneficial to train or at least be exposed to other methods (which really is what style means). However, styles as an organization provide a much-needed depth that many "style-hoppers" lack, in my opinion.

 

You are right, in the end, it boils down to the individual practitioner in terms of who is better than the other. However, I see the division of schools as something healthy, provided it isn't taken to the utmost extremes.

[Emei89]

But people can learn so much from eachother. I think it's almost ignorant to learn only one method. When you're a juror in court, you must take in all sides of the argument and then decide for yourself which parts are important and what is the truth. If people only see one "side" or style, it is almost impossible to CORRECTLY determine for themselves what is right. You can take the word of your sifu or sensei or whoever your master is which makes sense becuase AS a master they have more experoence then you. But if someone tells you swimming is fun are you content to take thier word for it? Would you not try it yourself? I simply feel that people become to relyant on even one VERSION of a style from thier master who they themselves are changing becuase they've made it thiers and teach it as THEY understand it. But how can you understand anything when you practically know nothing?

[Shorin Ryuu]

I think you underestimate the ability of a person to have critical thinking skills in approaching their art.

 

One thing I like about my organization is that it has various camps throughout the year where people from all over the country and sometimes Okinawa go to train. Some of these camp have hundreds of yudansha ranks from just our system, let alone all the colored belts and guests. The instructors in the seminars are high ranking people in our system. Some camps also have guest instructors from other systems as well. It really is a way to "check out" other masters and methods within and without our system. It also opens up people's eyes who fall victim into the trap you mentioned where everything their sensei says is The Truth. It has been my experience that good teachers won't act like this, anyway.

 

Like I mentioned in my other post above, there is no need to blindly accept everything your teacher says, nor is there any need to never accept training from other instructors or be exposed to other styles. But you have to have some sort of foundation before you branch outwards or experiment. Good, solid systems incorporate a wide, wide spectrum of concepts and principles, reducing the need to be a "style-hopper". For instance, I took a jujitsu class for a while. It was interesting to see things from a different perspective, but I found many of the principles were the same, negating the need to train in too many different places at once.

 

Since we're talking about styles, let me mention that in terms of Okinawan karate, this notion of styles is a relatively new concept. For the most part, this was introduced by the Japanese in the early 1900s as it became popularized. Before then, people just said they learned Motobu's te or Itosu's karate or something along those lines. Masters trained with other masters. If someone was good at kicking, people would go to him and train for kicking, and another for punching. Not necessarily like this all the time, but there was a lot more sharing of information between "styles". Nowadays it is different, but I mentioned why I still see them as a good thing in my other post. Again, things like organizational camps where even outside instructors are welcome provide an opportunity to mimic the old sharing of information. I've never had a problem meeting with other people of other styles and discussing martial arts and training with them. It's fairly common practice. It's one of the reasons why I have a broad knowledge of many styles other than my own, simply because I have trained not just with one person from style A and style B, but because I've trained with many people from styles, A, B, C, D, etc... However, I still keep my foundation in the style I've been training in the longest.

 

I've found many traditional karate teachers will often have friendships and share information with other teachers in and out of karate.

 

Yes, styles are here. But they aren't as monolithic and rigid as most people perceive them to be.

 

Good discussion though.

[Emei89]

Yeah somone else mentioned how style was generally new to Karate somewhere else on the sight it might've been you. You're very lucky to have an oppurtunity to travel to something like that. In 2-3 years i'll be going to china to study with people from all over. What you were saying about Ju-Jitsu is interesting. I've heard that before, that Karate, Ju-Jitsu, and one other thing it MIGHT be judo but thats really like throwing right? It's kind of different on Gung Fu though becuase in different animal styles for example you really fight pretty different. Even your strategy for approaching your enemy is different. Then again as you said multiple styles in Karate is generally new so I guess it will take more time to develop. I mean Gung Fu is about 3000 years old.

[ovine king]

name ONE chinese martial art that is 3000 years old.

[Emei89]

Kung Fu is 3000 years oold but orignally it was only for imperial soldiers. It was brought to the public until about 1500 years later. Dude the bible is 3000 years old and in Egypt they had fighting. It's not as farfetch'd as you assume.

[ovine king]

it's not that.

 

it's the fact that the things that we practice today as chinese martial arts only generally date back 500 years or so.

 

just so you know, there are no chinese records of single fighting systems that date back 3000 years.

 

what they do have are records of army organisation but that is nothing like what we would call 'martial arts' today.

[Emei89]

duh of course they didn't. It was supposed to be a secret. When you do forms that are just long combonations they were created like that becuase when people would practice in the opne they wanted to conceal thier technique so they disguised as sort of a dance. And yes what we do now is probably more modernized but that mostly becuase over the years they changed it to perfect it,