Is there any "True" styles?

[KempoTiger]

That thread below with the guy defending TKD got me thinking....what makes a style...a style?

I mean any school can claim to teach but what if that school doesn't follow the typical training dogma or stereotypes? For example what if a Muay Thai school incorporated alot of groundword into their fighting? Or a BJJ school focused alot on point sparring or boxing drills? Are they still teaching the style, or just adding stuff to their classes?

I know for me, my kempo system doesn't focus on alot of groundwork, by myself and a few other black belts train groundword on our own and with other BJJ guys which we then work into our regular classes. Our students to the best of their knowlege are learning "Kempo" groundwork. Which then leads to the question, what makes a style a style? (then again I suppose Kempo is a bad example, because Kempo's staple is absorbing techniques from other systems)

So anyway that guy below claims that his TKD school works alot of join locks and hand fighting drills into their training. Are they in fact still teaching an improved form of TKD, or are they merely teaching practical techniques under the guise of the name of an impractical system?

[MasterH]

That thread below with the guy defending TKD got me thinking....what makes a style...a style?

I mean any school can claim to teach but what if that school doesn't follow the typical training dogma or stereotypes? For example what if a Muay Thai school incorporated alot of groundword into their fighting? Or a BJJ school focused alot on point sparring or boxing drills? Are they still teaching the style, or just adding stuff to their classes?

I know for me, my kempo system doesn't focus on alot of groundwork, by myself and a few other black belts train groundword on our own and with other BJJ guys which we then work into our regular classes. Our students to the best of their knowlege are learning "Kempo" groundwork. Which then leads to the question, what makes a style a style? (then again I suppose Kempo is a bad example, because Kempo's staple is absorbing techniques from other systems)

So anyway that guy below claims that his TKD school works alot of join locks and hand fighting drills into their training. Are they in fact still teaching an improved form of TKD, or are they merely teaching practical techniques under the guise of the name of an impractical system?

Improvement is the american way, it's also a good buisness practice. Unfortunetly what I see as an improvement you will see as a step away from the "true" style that it was once ment to be. Take a lesson from the oak tree, tradition needs to be flexable and bend with the wind, or it will break.

[KempoTiger]

Improvement is the american way, it's also a good buisness practice. Unfortunetly what I see as an improvement you will see as a step away from the "true" style that it was once ment to be. Take a lesson from the oak tree, tradition needs to be flexable and bend with the wind, or it will break.

Very well put, and don't get me wrong I have no problem breaking away from "true" styles. But if you look at virtually ANY style, it has changed and improved one way or another since it's founding (usually because what was once taught was found to be impractical). This is also why I began training in Kempo, simply because the system of it I train in encompasses many different avenues of techniques making the system flexible enough for anyone to utilize.

It just kinda hit me now, that most martial arts schools train essentially the same thing when it comes to fighting -assuming they train their students to actually fight- but as far as pretty kata's and the like, THEN the feel of the class changes.

But I suppose this comes down to what my friend claims to do, and that is train in "No style" but rather just learn to fight by using what works and forgetting the rest. Also kinda like what Bruce Lee was trying to teach everyone in the Game of Death

[MasterH]

All true. Look at the org I was with years ago, the ATA. It was traditional TKD. Then they added pressure points, ground fighting, a weapons program, a required instructor program, a required nember of students before rank advancement......it go's on and on. And it's not just them, orgs all over the place is doing this......some is good, some is bad. You can only bend a tree so far, but it still needs to bend.

Good topic. You're making me think, hard to do on a Sunday!

[Muaythaiboxer]

wow this topic is a diamond in the ruff

IMHO all styles need to change with time but the problem is when people chang there style not to make it more effective but to make it more customer friendly. for enstance although most MT classes will give you better fighting skills than most other systems it is not customer friendly nor do the moves look that pretty, and no parent (except mine) would place there child in an enviorment where they would be subjected to full contact techniques, and lets face it if you want to get rich off MA schools you have to make your dojo kid friendly kids are the the MA schools bread and butter. then you have to add all the "extra stuff" to make more money. if a MT school stoped doing full contact and started doing tap sparing and then started to add flashy kicks to make it look cool it would stop being MT and be a watered down worthless system that happens to make money. this has happened many schools i talked to my TKD teacher and he said that 20 years ago most TKD dojongs where doing full contact and that hapkido was more offtain than not added in so then you had sweeps and throws then the teachers realized that americans dident want to learn how to fight they wanted to do forms and show off there flashy kicks and win trophys.

[MasterH]

As I said, there's good and bad. I don't do full contact. I did some back in "the day" but now I have no interest and my students, have little interest as well. Americans will watch some on TV but not practice it. But the Americans who do chose to practice it do very well, normaly.

[White Warlock]

In regards to the question posed, "are there any true styles?"

They are all true.

What needs to be considered, is the truth that you're looking for. If your truth is in obtaining flashy moves so you can enhance your movie career, than many systems exist out there that will do just that. If your truth is to sell a product, and learn the material that is the product, as quickly as possible, than there are truths out there in 'some' styles.

Essentially, truth is dependent upon you. I find many aspects of aikido to be true, but not all aspects. I find many aspects of bjj to be true, but not all aspects. That is because, my truth doesn't mesh with any one particular existing style.

Why? Two things: One is, every style was created by 'someone.' What they created was based on their perception of truth, and their exposure to knowledge. Two is, i have my own perception of truth, based on my exposure to knowledge that differs, slightly or en grande, from that of others.

It is my firm belief (that although capable of changing is still well affirmed), what is necessary to understand... is the goal is not obtainment of mastery of any particular style, but finding your path. If your path is in absorbing the path of another, than be at peace with it. If, on the other hand, your path is to absorb the paths of many others, and in that process obtain a better understanding of your own path, than be at peace with that. And, if neither are of those cases, and you feel making your own path, based on nothing, is your path, be at peace with that.

But, it needs to be understood, being at peace... means also being true to yourself. And this comes full circle with the topic... that of 'true' styles.

Be well

[KempoTiger]

wow this topic is a diamond in the ruff

IMHO all styles need to change with time but the problem is when people chang there style not to make it more effective but to make it more customer friendly. for enstance although most MT classes will give you better fighting skills than most other systems it is not customer friendly nor do the moves look that pretty, and no parent (except mine) would place there child in an enviorment where they would be subjected to full contact techniques, and lets face it if you want to get rich off MA schools you have to make your dojo kid friendly kids are the the MA schools bread and butter. then you have to add all the "extra stuff" to make more money. if a MT school stoped doing full contact and started doing tap sparing and then started to add flashy kicks to make it look cool it would stop being MT and be a watered down worthless system that happens to make money. this has happened many schools i talked to my TKD teacher and he said that 20 years ago most TKD dojongs where doing full contact and that hapkido was more offtain than not added in so then you had sweeps and throws then the teachers realized that americans dident want to learn how to fight they wanted to do forms and show off there flashy kicks and win trophys.

I completely agree and share your distaste for schools that mix and water down their systems to make them more "friendly."

The school I train in isn't exactly a full contact MT or JKD school, but we have the students that really want it fight with some contact and really learn to fight and the rest can take it a bit more easy. I tell my students right off the bat that they will only get out of my class what they put it, and if they wuss out of every workout and shy away from every sparring match, then so be it and more power to the ones that want it.

Most of my adult male students wanna brawl so to speak, and don't want any watered down garbage. But most of my non-child female students just want to learn a few self defense techniques and get a workout.

[KempoTiger]

In regards to the question posed, "are there any true styles?"

They are all true.....

Warlock, I think you're misreading my question asking about true styles in the sense of purity with the concept of universal truth.

I only ask how many systems stay "true" to the dogma that they once taught back during their founders creation of them. My point is that just about every style has a founding theory or concept behind it, that is incomplete when it comes to the overlying necessity of self defense or fighting prowess. To compensate for whatever each style may be lacking today, especially in America most martial arts schools are adding in alot of theories that aren't pure to what was originally taught.

Many martial artists seek "pure" styles, but in my opinion if such a thing still exists today it's not very useful.

Styles such as Kempo, Kajukenbo, Jeet Kun Do and the like try to encompass all of these theories but depending on the instructor it's often not taught properly.

If you look at the UFC, many martial artists have had to reconsider their fighting strategy, and have taken up learning various grappling systems/techniques. Now when you watch the UFC you get to see the little info bar telling you what styles the fighters have trained in, but they all tend to fight the same way in some MMA/Grappling style.

Just something I've been thinking about.

[White Warlock]

Warlock, I think you're misreading my question asking about true styles in the sense of purity with the concept of universal truth.

I only ask how many systems stay "true" to the dogma that they once taught back during their founders creation of them. My point is that just about every style has a founding theory or concept behind it, that is incomplete when it comes to the overlying necessity of self defense or fighting prowess. To compensate for whatever each style may be lacking today, especially in America most martial arts schools are adding in alot of theories that aren't pure to what was originally taught.

Thus creating their 'version' of truth. Yet, even their presentation may not provide the truth for others, and thus be incomplete.

There are plenty of thoughts to consider here. One is, the style as originally presented by the founder... was it incomplete to him? Had he entered a conflict or an MMA competition, would he have fared well? In many persons' opinions, the founder of many of these systems would have wiped the floor with the competitors of today... but we'll never really know, because these founders have since passed away.

What we do know, is that the system has since been passed down a few generations, taught by persons with their own perceptions, and their own views of what works better. They may emphasize one part or another. Indeed, Gracie ju-jitsu is actually judo, with a heavier emphasis on groundwork.

Many martial artists seek "pure" styles, but in my opinion if such a thing still exists today it's not very useful.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't necessarily agree that a pure system, whatever that is, is not very useful. Indeed, you take what others have learned, and you extrapolate. You absorb and you merge with your own knowledge, to come to an understanding that may be far more encompassing had you 'not' studied a pure style.

Part of the problem nowadays, is that people learn piecemeal. They don't capture the essence of any particular style, and instead look for a bag of tricks each system may provide. This superficial approach to study fails to grasp the insights presented in these various 'pure' styles. These styles were devised by people that, at the time, presented groundbreaking concepts. It is these concepts that are often lost to the superficial student.

Styles such as Kempo, Kajukenbo, Jeet Kun Do and the like try to encompass all of these theories but depending on the instructor it's often not taught properly.

And that is not the founders' fault, as it is the instructors' fault. You cannot honestly condemn a 'pure' system, or even a 'mixed' system, merely by pointing at the instructor, second or third generation removed.

If you study directly with the founder, and you find the style/system lacking... it is either because you are not grasping what is being presented, or it is lacking. However, if the founder of that system can toss you about like a rag doll, without your ability to counter or gain any discernable advantage... i would lean towards the former. Give it more time, grasp the concepts being presented... master the techniques.

If you look at the UFC, many martial artists have had to reconsider their fighting strategy, and have taken up learning various grappling systems/techniques. Now when you watch the UFC you get to see the little info bar telling you what styles the fighters have trained in, but they all tend to fight the same way in some MMA/Grappling style.

If you look at the UFC, many competitors are 'young' and not as knowledgeable in the arts as their elders and the founders of the various systems they purport to have mastered. Also, those little info bars provide 'soundbites' for the salivating masses that cannot tell the difference between tae kwon do and freestyle wrestling. They indicate the 'dominant' system of that practitioner, like that one guy who was a brown belt in tae kwon do, and made up his own style called something "Sun Do" just so he could compete in the UFC.

Really... there's no truth there.

Just something I've been thinking about.

Understood