The best answer to the "how do I beat this style"

[y2_sub]

Of course style matters!

Agreed

Thats like saying a random guy on the street could beat a 5th dan black belt, he "just needs to fight well enough".

An experienced street guy may beet a 5th dan with no real experience , that exact point proves that style matters

[White Warlock]

Ugh

The individual can define everything. From what he studies to how he conditions. So, in truth, all things do not matter, as long as the individual strives for excellence within himself. If he does, he will pursue all things that will eventually cause him to reach that excellence, be it one style, or many.

As to what style beats what, that is the oldest and most annoying debate on the dinner table. It is not the style, but the approach. And while some styles have a better approach than others, it is often the case that the means by which that style is taught, as well as the intensity and the focus, which determines whether a particular style... as presented... is better than another style... as presented. But, i'm sure we can all agree that one school of boxing can completely dominate another school of boxing, merely for the manner in which they train, and the material for which they focus on.

[SenseiMike]

The style matter a great deal.

There is a reason full contact fighters all fight in a similar way. There is a reason they punch the way they do, and a reason they kick the way they do. Other ways don't work as well.

THere is also a reason you don't see any TKD (or tai chi, or shotokan, etc) fighters in MMA.

not true at all.

You do see tkd & shotokan guys fighting in the mma, they're just not as common. As I said, it's how you train the style, not the style itself.

[SubGrappler]

The style matter a great deal.

There is a reason full contact fighters all fight in a similar way. There is a reason they punch the way they do, and a reason they kick the way they do. Other ways don't work as well.

THere is also a reason you don't see any TKD (or tai chi, or shotokan, etc) fighters in MMA.

not true at all.

You do see tkd & shotokan guys fighting in the mma, they're just not as common. As I said, it's how you train the style, not the style itself.

The way you practice is also often a trademark of whatever specific style you train in.

For example, most people know that grapplers, boxers, and muay thai fighters train full contact with plenty of resistance-

Most people also know, however, that when you mention karate, TKD, or Kung Fu, you're talking about point sparring (this does not mean ALL styles).

So now, if you take a karate guy and start training him full contact, then by all means he could make quite a good striker- It happens a lot quite actually, but the reality of full contact fighting does not support karate's "one strike one kill" doctrine. As a result, a karate fighter would start throwing combinations, at which point EVERY karate fighter in the world goes out and say "look- hes not using karate- hes doing boxing/kickboxing."

I hear it all the time- people (Not referring to you) say that K-1 and MMA events are just "thugs" who have no technique but are tough. When you bring up names like Andy Hug and Semmy Schilt though, suddenly these guys have skill and are proof that karate works in a fight (though this apparently doesnt apply fighters from other styles).

Bottom line is that styles matter- a karateka is NOT going to be able to teach you how to fight on the ground like a BJJ fighter will- a boxer cant teach you how to take someone down like a wrestler can. The opposite is also true when learning how to strike.

If styles meant nothing, then there would have been just as many successful pure strikers in the early days of MMA as there were wrestlers and BJJ fighters.

[ravenzoom]

I wonder why people still believe style does not matter? If style didn't matter one bit, why the hell practice any martial art? Just condition yourself to slugging it out with your opponent.

[angus88]

I think the school you train in and how you train matters far more than style. I've visited countless other schools of verying styles, bust mostly karate, tae kwon do and kung fu. But I'll watch people train and see how the school is and just about every time think to myself, "no wonder people think karate/tae kwon do/kung fu students can't fight."

It's a sad reality - most schools today care more about money than training good students. Plus people nowadays want things easy, and most schools are more than happy to give them what they want. Still, that's not a true representative of the styles themselves, just the majority of schools out there and consequently, many of the students as well.

Maybe BJJ hasn't reached the depths that karate, TKD and kung fu have, but give it some time. The more popular it gets, the more money can be made from it, then let the watering down begin.

[Jay]

style does matter but only when your fighting against someone also 'trained'

[AndrewGreen]

It's a sad reality - most schools today care more about money than training good students. Plus people nowadays want things easy, and most schools are more than happy to give them what they want. Still, that's not a true representative of the styles themselves, just the majority of schools out there and consequently, many of the students as well.

The sad reality is that martial arts schools have big bills which need to be paid.

Try doing the math, Pick a salary you think is resonable for someone that risked everything (House, car, bankruptcy, etc.) in order to open a school deserves.

Divide that into months, now add 3000 - 4000 / month for rent, phone, power, advertising, etc.

Now start breaking that into # of students x tuition. Remember, this is only ONE instructor getting paid, So class sizes of 35 are not possible. Nor is teaching 8 classes a day.

Most Commercial martial arts schools are charging less then they should given the business model of a martial arts school.

[Sauzin]

You know the individual does makes a big difference, but to say style doesn't seems to be putting a blind fold on for the sake of being PC. It is true that at the end of all the progression (if there is such a thing) the results become the same. In other words, all roads lead to Rome, but the roads are different and not all of them are equal. Styles affect how you progress, in what manner, and how quickly just as the individual does. They are two sides of the same coin, the means and the method, both matter, because I have never met anyone who is at the end of their road.

[angus88]

To Andrew: I understand the economics of running a school perfectly well. I also understand that prostituting your art is not the only way to make money in the martial arts. You can make a good living running a school without compromising the integrity of the system itself. There are a few schools that still do that.

To Sauzin: Believe me when I say being PC is the last thing I care about being. All I know is what I've seen. And I've yet to see a style so perfect that a person is unbeatable by virtue of style alone. Of course style can make a difference to an extent, but I've seen people practice very dangerous martial arts moves that you can tell by watching them they'd never be able to do if push came to shove. In other words, you can't hide behind your style and pretend to be superman just because on paper it looks like an unbeatable style. Does that make sense?

And when you say "styles affect how you progress, in what manner, etc." - again, I would question the school itself. You can have two kung fu schools of the same "style" that progress in very different ways. I agree - method and manner both count, I just wouldn't attribute that automatically to style.