Maists Purists vs Realists

[Alan Armstrong]

As my own philosophy is to teach students what they need to know without betraying or changing my chosen discipline.

I will however adapt and adopt other systems concepts, principles or techniques that are effective and efficient towards becoming a proficient maist and teach them openly.

As when starting my MA journey in the late 1970,s in Shotokan as this was the curriculum, yet on the floor the higher belts were using many techniques, notably having nothing to do with what was being taught.

As over time was noticing that this was part of the advantage, that the higher ranks had over the lower ones, they were not purists they were however realists.

How far are you willing to change or adopt other systems to your teaching, that are not part of your curriculum?

[tallgeese]

As my own philosophy is to teach students what they need to know without betraying or changing my chosen discipline.

I will however adapt and adopt other systems concepts, principles or techniques that are effective and efficient towards becoming a proficient maist and teach them openly.

As when starting my MA journey in the late 1970,s in Shotokan as this was the curriculum, yet on the floor the higher belts were using many techniques, notably having nothing to do with what was being taught.

As over time was noticing that this was part of the advantage, that the higher ranks had over the lower ones, they were not purists they were however realists.

How far are you willing to change or adopt other systems to your teaching, that are not part of your curriculum?

I'm all in on this. I come from a kempo lineage that was all about things working. Now, developing enough background and experience to determine a) what is actually effective vs. what looks effective, and b) having enough time on and understanding about how to best integrate your new tool into your response patter, can be difficult. However, it's worth it to have a more realistic outlook.

[Alan Armstrong]

The realistic outlook for what I teach is to make proper use of what works without hesitation.

As in, believing in the technique or principle in practice, that are becoming part of the muscle memory mechanics for each individual.

A "wax on wax off moment" epiphany such as in the "Karate Kid" sand a floor and paint de fence.

As my base MA system is Wing Chun, yet I draw from which ever source available from my past associations of other MA systems.

Principles and concepts that deems to work no matter which system put claims on them first, that are worth teaching, should be used to enrich a student's knowledge and understanding, without any doubts, ifs or buts.

As my primary concern is to arm the student with the right information and practice, towards defending one's self, in the most effective and efficient way possible.

As for the student, to not be caught up in the politics and nonsense, that can very quickly develop if not careful, a false sense of confidence that in the long run is counterproductive.

Having seen enough videos of naive maists, thrown into the pit or pierpressred to fight against seasoned fighters (purists vs realists) declaring style vs style, which is totally manic and absurd, as the outcome is predetermined IMHO

The CI's that endanger their novice students, having them fight when notably unprepared, (similar to bringing a plastic knife to a gun fight) should be seen as being very irresponsible and unnecessarily reckless to those that believe in them.

[bushido_man96]

I enjoy seeing how other styles do things and seeing how I can incorporate some aspects into my teachings, and I am more than willing to share things with students when I have the chance to. In the course of a class, it is at times difficult to work some of these things in, based on what the class is working on how things apply. I do like finding the time to work in little nuggets from other trainings when it fits with what we are doing at the time.

[Alan Armstrong]

I enjoy seeing how other styles do things and seeing how I can incorporate some aspects into my teachings, and I am more than willing to share things with students when I have the chance to. In the course of a class, it is at times difficult to work some of these things in, based on what the class is working on how things apply. I do like finding the time to work in little nuggets from other trainings when it fits with what we are doing at the time.

I here what you are saying and I like the little nuggets idea.

Silat has many little nuggets but when smelting them together with Wing Chun, the student unknowingly absorb it naturally without knowing the differences between them.

Which makes me question if Wing Chun is a descendent of Silat; as Silat is considered to be the oldest martial art in the world!

Silat is also principle based as is Wing Chun, they harmonize perfectly with each other, whilst watching Silat at times, that looks on the surface as being Wing Chun.

I can honestly say that, if I am good at Wing Chun, then it is due to incorporating Silat principles.

There are those that blend Kali, Wing Chun, JKD Muay Thai and so on, I find this to be an open minded approach, nothing wrong with it, for those that have the capacity and ability to understand what they are all about; there is a danger however to be a Jack of all trades and master of none, if not careful.

[kenpo4life]

I am curious where you got the notion that silat was the oldest art in the world. There are drawings of Martial Arts in the hieroglyphics and other cultures as old as those.

[bushido_man96]

As long as there has been humans, there has been warfare, and therefore, that's how long the MA's have been around. People had to learn how to fight, and eventually, training rolled around to help people learn how to fight more efficiently, or in more military fashions in regards to defending the homeland or such. Some cultures started to codify and record it more than others did, and I think the cultures that did this tend to be the ones we think of as the "progenitors" of the Martial Arts.

[Spartacus Maximus]

Maybe the terms used for the intended discussion are not mutually exclusive. “Purist” does not necessarily mean that one lacks a realistic approach to how and what one practises or teaches.

[sensei8]

Maybe the terms used for the intended discussion are not mutually exclusive. “Purist” does not necessarily mean that one lacks a realistic approach to how and what one practises or teaches.

Solid post!!

[bushido_man96]

I agree as well. When it comes to MA training, I would think that purist would be likely to settle on what is proven and practical for self-defense purposes.

Perhaps a better term would "theoretical?"