Hmmm.......

[Martial_Artist]

I've noticed this brought up on several different threads and I have to ask:

 

If the art doesn't matter and it's totally the artist then what does it matter what art you take? Or why do people take one art over the other? Strewn on several different forums are arguments as to which style is better, TKD vs Kung F, karate vs everything, etcetera; or "Everything equal which art would win?" and so on and so forth.

 

If that is the case, art is inferior to artist, then why doesn't everyone just build strength, speed, stamina, and agility and then duke it out that way? Why even bother deciding on art, and just take anything out there? It doesn't really matter, right? It's the artist not the art, right?

 

If that's so true, then why the argument? Why the unclarity, the confusion?

 

Surely every art can't be classified as equal and the result of victory being totally attributed to the person. Without doubt the person plays a major role, but is that the only role to be played on this stage?

 

If, according to general concensus (gathered from various different posts and threads), it is the artist and not the art, then why fret over which art to take in your area? It really wouldn't matter, would it? I mean, after all, it is the artist and not the art. So, take anything out there and you'll be fine; just be sure to be a good fighter, right?

 

Anything? Anythoughts? Am I alone in seeing the holes in this type of logic?

 

Perhaps, it lies much deeper than a common acceptance of "it is artist rather than art" but is in burrowing oneself in a general need to conform rather than admit shortcoming.

 

ps

 

Most of this is written in the rhetorical and with the intent to cause provoking thought on the part of the reader.

[--]

The art does make the artist, to some degree. I can guarantee you that someone who takes Aikido as opposed to Muay Thai is going to turn out differently, physically, mentally, whatever. On top of that, certain arts just aren't for certain people. A pacifist may have moral issues with taking Ninjutsu, for example. Or how someone with weak bones wouldn't last long in Chin Na training. I think what they mean is that you can take almost any art and be good enough to defend yourself if you needed to, but different people have different preferences. Obviously, an adrenaline junkie wouldn't enjoy Tai Chi too much, even if it is good self defense.

 

 

[Shoto Tiger]

I agree - its up to the individual and what they want and can get out of a martial art.

 

As previously mentioned on another thread - Shotokan (and others) were developed in Okinawa - Japan - and a majority of the people developing the MA were reasonably short. So it fits that Shotokan of today may fit better with shorter people rather than taller people...you know what I mean

 

 

[Sin Style]

as long it helps you to fight better it doesn't matter what you do.

 

Bruce Lee said something along that line

 

 

[Taikudo-ka]

Like most things, the truth is always somewhere in the middle. What goes into the fight is a combination of natural skill AND training. The training could take many forms, and of course not all activities are necessarily as effective as each other. However, most arts combine a range of training activities, generally tested over time, such that overall some benefit must accrue.

 

Each path ultimately leads to the same destination, but the route taken is different, hence the experience gained along the way is different. The shorter road might get you there quicker, but the long road may provide a more interesting and varied experience. Do you want the slow, scenic tour into the true heartland, or do you need to rush down the free-way to meet an appointment at the other end, like a competition fight at a certain time?

 

However, what each person learns from the journey is up to them. The fool sent on the scenic route will simply report back that it was too long, winding, and poorly signposted, and he got lost on the way.

 

The beauty of the martial arts is that on one hand, it can be a totally objective science, analysing body structure, physics of strikes, leverage and angles for throws, measuring the force of a punch, etc. On the other hand, it is also totally subjective and open to an endless list of variables and ideas. There are SO many different ways to stop, control, injure, main, hurt, throw, choke or otherwise incapacitate a person that no-one can know EVERYTHING. Also, the reactions of the other person can be unpredictable, and you never know exactly what they are going to do.

 

 

[Jack]

I have not read all of the responses, but I would say this..

 

The artist needs to choose an art that matches his physical and mental requirements, and focuses on his/her strengths whilst working on his/her weaknesses. A tall person with a long reach with their legs may choose Taekwondo, while a short stocky and strong person may choose Judo.

 

What I believe, if you have for example a tall TKDist with a long reach, and a stocky strong Judoka, then it is down to personal skill. If however the tall person chose something else, he would not fight making full use of his strength (long legs) and then perhaps the Judoka has a better chance of winning. It's not individually about the person in my opinion, nor is it individually about the art. It's the correct compatibility between the two.

 

Peace.

 

 

[Jack]

On 2002-06-25 17:17, Martial_Artist wrote:

 

Anything? Anythoughts? Am I alone in seeing the holes in this type of logic?

 

You are not alone there. I can see why you ask this and in part I would agree.

 

 

[Bon]

I like Jack's post..

 

I was gonna use a vechile analogy for transporting 1 tonne of tomatoes to another state. Which car ? Small car, medium car, family car, truck.

 

Obviously the truck. Yet, a plane might be even better if we're moving big distances from state to state in America. The characteristics of the car correspond to the characteristics of the art which a person can take advantage of depending on their personal characteristics and goals.

 

 

[Taikudo-ka]

Actually if you want an analogy, I think music is possibly the best one. What's more important - the musician or the instrument. Well, at first glance, obviously the musician. They choose what notes are played, how, when, etc. A good musician can also make a dodgy intrument sound relatively good, whereas a person with no musical skill won't make a good sound, even with a special edition Gibson and a Marshall valve amp stack.

 

So why do we even need special instruments? Why are music shops stocked with 101 different guitars, all with slightly different sounds. Why are there so many different types of instruments - guitars, cellos, other strings, pianos, keyboards, drums, trumpets, saxaphones, flutes, gongs, marimbas, etc, etc, plus the host of effects and processors to make them sound different.

 

Why are there so many musical styles. If there are only twelve notes, and there's really no such thing as a "wrong" note, why so much musical theory, scales, modes, chords, harmony theory, modal theory, diatoic theory, atonal theory, Indian ragas and all the other structures and "rules" and systems. And if the guys are sliding and bending the pitch around so much anyway, why is there even a need for a "blues" scale?

 

Well, everyone needs a base. Most self taught musicians don't really discover anything new. They just spend a lot of time re-discovering the blues and natural minor scales.

 

Learning a "school" or "style" allows you to quickly absorb stuff that people have already discoverd, systemized, and developed to a high degree. You can learn a lot of basic principles and ideas that might take a long time to figure out yourself.

 

However, with everyone's different taste and approach to what sounds good, as well as different technical ability, a wide range of styles develop, all with different approaches to making music, and what sounds are important where. There are many ways to play the "same" chord, just as there are many ways to take down the same opponent. Style is just the way you go about doing it.

 

As far as needing lots of instruments, well, most musicians have long since progressed from banging simple rocks and sticks together. (Just as most martial artists want to progress past the immediately obvious jab punch and front kick.) Of course, the percussive effect of banging two objects together is still effectively applied to most music, and can be a whole art in itself, with all sorts of wild "combos". It's just that most people want to spice things up with "extra" sounds to make it more interesting.

 

Hence the proliferation of styles and instruments, both in music and martial arts. And learning a commercially available instrument from a teacher allows a musician to progress faster and sound better than sitting in their garage building their own gear and trying to re-invent everything themselves.

 

However, arguing about what style is superior seems a bit like arguing over what instrument or music style is better...

 

What's best - classical, jazz, rock, hip-hip? Violin, trumpet, guitar, beat box? Who is a better musician - Beethoven, Miles Davis, Jimi Hendrix or The RZA? Most people would answer these questions based on personal taste, without realizing that each has a particular talent and style which the other three would probably fail if they tried to copy.

 

Now, could any of these artists achieved what they did if all they had were sticks and stones? Not really... Each relied on some musical technology and styles around at the time to build their art from. But was it the instrument that made them great? No...in many cases the "chosen" instrument presented its own limits and challenges. What makes them all great is the way they mastered their chosen instrument and art and use it to express their ideas, turning weaknesses into strengths and "pushing the envelope" in what was considered possible.

 

Likewise with martial arts styles.

[Ti-Kwon-Leap]

I think the point of the statement : "it's not the art but the artist" is for bringing to light the huge hangup people seem to have on finding "the art with all the answers".

 

Effective warriors are the collective result of so many factors, the least of which is contained in any single "style".

 

The intelligent fighter not only avoids pigeonholing himself into any one particular doctrine, he also maximizes his potential by finding the combination of tactics that work for him.

 

This means transcending "style" to at least some degree.

 

Bruce Lee had a core style (Wing Chun) he supplimented it with serious study in several other disciplines (including different philosophies) until he could freely express himself as a fighter and human being.

 

He exemplifies This topic's tagline.

 

The "art" is static, nothing but a collection of tactics and doctrine handed down from is creator.

 

The "artist" however is dynamic and must create himself.

 

He must bring the art to life.

 

He must use the most effective tactic at the optimal moment.

 

The "art" doesn't think, react or flow, the ARTIST does.

 

There are people who will forever be searching for which style is better.

 

Then there are the ones who will at the same time be working on BEING better.

 

Take your pick...

 

_________________

 

"It is not enough to aim, you must hit."

 

-Italian Proverb

 

 

 

[ This Message was edited by: Ti-Kwon-Leap on 2002-06-27 04:21 ]