Is It The Style Or Is It The Practitioner?

[bushido_man96]

I believe, to a point, it's both. It's obvious to me that a person with natural athletic gifts and an indomitable spirit will have an increased likely hood of success in whatever it is they do.

The system is important in so much as the skill sets it will impart on the student. If the martial art has poor skill sets, athletic ability can only go so far. Further, if that art's skill sets are better used by one body frame over another, the student may suffer if they are not built for the system. If it depends on strength or mass and the student is small and weak, it may be a poor fit.

So to blame the system is not always fair. To blame the athlete is not always fair. It's really about pairing the right person to the right system.

This is a great summary. I also think that at times, bad teachers, or poorly informed teachers, can make a style appear ineffective by the way they teach it. Its tough for a bad teacher to make any system look good, and thus trasmit it effectively. Overall, I would tend to put more on a practitioner at first glance than a system. However, there could be some quacks out there spouting foutains of crap in a style they put together, which could make for a bad style.

[GeterDone]

I believe the style has to match the practitioner's abilities, physical assets and interests. There also has to be a match to the given situation and opponent(s). Another crucial factor I believe is the instructor and fellow students. If the instructor teaches students to yell and swing their shoulders and arms wildly while running headfirst into the opponent, it probably will cause panic or confusion but nothing more. Additionally, the instructor has to have a solid grip on the students in the class. If the particular MA uses no-contact sparring, then students shouldn't engage in full-contact sparring whenever they feel like. Lastly, I believe there should be diversity in terms of the strategies each student uses (providing it's within the particular MA) and the physical attributes, so as to be able to practice how to defend oneself or fight someone who isn't your size, weight and strength.

[Dobbersky]

Definately its the Fighter first then the style.

As Musashi in his Book of 5 Rings states, one should make sure one have found a style a school which fits with ones own needs.

To say "the style of no style" is just quoting a film star, like me quoting Mr Miyagi or similar

Each style has its own merits and has it strengths and weaknesses.

To add, as soon as one puts perimieters on something, creating a "syllabus" etc then one has 'A style' (no if's, but's, why's, what's or when's) you can never have a style of no style as it has to conform to something and predominantly its from previous training and experience.

If its "Street fighting in a bottle" and the components do not come from any school of martial arts or wrestling or boxing etc THEN and only then could one consider this as the style of no style

[shadowspawn]

The most effient style is to have no style

Enough said

I understand what you're saying. You're talking more in the same sense that Bruce Lee spoke. Take what works for you and move on. If you like elements x and y from karate and elements z and q from kung fu then that's what you should use.

However, you have to be careful. Otherwise, you get people teaching stuff like this:

So it's not to say "no style" rather, your style. The moves that work best for you are the moves you should use.

Not entirely sure what you're getting at linking to that video. I mean yes it looks silly, but from my perspective, it does have its merits. I mean if you hit the ground and you're not in a MMA ring, I don't think you'd be willing to risk laying on your back hoping to catch your assailant in your guard if he decides to fight on the ground with you. I'm pretty sure you'd be trying to work on getting back to your feet as soon as possible. This seems like a decent set of ground techniques to make space for you to transition from on your back to on your feet.

[JusticeZero]

I dunno. It's a set of techniques for the floor, but i'd sooner send you to a Capoeira school to learn that skillset, much like i'd send someone wanting to grapple on the ground to a BJJ school. I think I saw those basic techniques (or something like them) in a book on Dog gongfu long ago, but there was more use of the upper two feet, more focus, more visible application beyond "filling the air with swishing feet", and cleaner lines of force described in those techniques.