The Perpetual Contrary Argument

[sensei8]

This VS That, Style-wise. This discussion just never seems to go to the wayside for some strange reason(s), and more than likely, it'll never do so. Opinions vary, yet, there seems to be no concrete answer to the very question at hand.

There's an unfathomable amount of discussions within the world of the MA that pins to the wall the This VS That, Style-wise, that is. This to me is quite unjust for all concerned.

Why??

Blaming the style is like blaming the alarm clock for not waking you up. The alarm clock was invented/founded to sound loud enough at any chosen prescribed time. If the alarm clock didn't do what it's designed to do, then I suggest that the individual, and not the alarm clock, are at fault. Someone has to properly set, and turn the alarm clock feature on.

Turning to the style vs style argument is akin to the alarm clock example. When said style was founded, it was determined that said style was indeed effective throughout its history via its proven trails and tribulations.

If said style isn't effective, then I strongly suggest that the individual/practitioner, and not any said style, is ineffective. After all, said individual/practitioner must be able to effectively execute what it's designed to do.

When a individual/practitioner can't be effectively with what it's designed to do, MA-wise, then the individual/practitioner lacks the necessary maturity to be effective, and not any said MA style.

Effective knowledge and experience births maturity in any given technique. The founder of said MA style has already laid the foundation, and not on sand, but on solid ground.

Others can do it, so why can't the next person?? The lack of maturity in any given technique. Receiving a technique takes a lot of maturity to be effective consistently; it takes more than one might imagine.

Karate VS Aikido, for an example. Each will have their sound arguments and the like to support each others styles pros and cons of the other. However, the responsibility to ensure that either style is more effective solely lies with the individual/practitioner, and NOT the style.

Albeit, the style is just a thing, and for anything to be effective it must be properly used, yet still, without the proper knowledge and experience through maturity, that thing is just that...a thing.

In my example of Karate VS Aikido, I do believe that both are effective, yet without the individual/practitioner making it effective, then all that remains are labels.

Put the blame to the individual/practitioner who turned said style into question, and not the style. I'm speaking towards MA styles that are proven and solid within their effectiveness, and not styles that can't hold water to save their souls. Many practitioners aren't mature yet enough to effectively execute said said proven style; it takes an untold amount of time.

So, if one doesn't properly set, and turn on, the alarm clock, then don't blame the alarm clock; blame oneself instead.

Perhaps, said style is only as effective as your last encounter.

Imho!!

[bushido_man96]

I see some good points here, but I also see some issues.

Most of this style vs. style banter started during the first UFCs, when ground fighting came to the forefront as a most effective form of combat.

I'll be the first to admit that my style, TKD, doesn't have an effective foundation for fighting from the ground. It is very limited, and most schools don't practice it much, if at all. There are other styles out there that don't have an effectual ground component at this time, either; styles like Muay Thai, Boxing, some Karate styles, etc. The Krav Maga that I've studied has some ground components in it, but they are mostly focused around improving position and getting off the ground, as opposed to staying on the ground and fighting.

So a new question pops up. If my style does not have ground fighting, is it not effective? Or is it just not effective against ground fighting?

[sensei8]

If my style does not have ground fighting, is it not effective? Or is it just not effective against ground fighting?

Again, the practitioner is that which is ineffective, and not the style. If a style doesn't have this or that, I'm quite sure that that said style has other means to skin the cat.

[bushido_man96]

If my style does not have ground fighting, is it not effective? Or is it just not effective against ground fighting?

Again, the practitioner is that which is ineffective, and not the style. If a style doesn't have this or that, I'm quite sure that that said style has other means to skin the cat.

Based on what you're saying here, means that I have to step outside my style to learn grappling, so that I can be effective. Because my style doesn't have a grappling focus....it's not ineffective, but I am, because I didn't learn grappling from my style that doesn't teach grappling...

[sensei8]

If my style does not have ground fighting, is it not effective? Or is it just not effective against ground fighting?

Again, the practitioner is that which is ineffective, and not the style. If a style doesn't have this or that, I'm quite sure that that said style has other means to skin the cat.

Based on what you're saying here, means that I have to step outside my style to learn grappling, so that I can be effective. Because my style doesn't have a grappling focus....it's not ineffective, but I am, because I didn't learn grappling from my style that doesn't teach grappling...

You don't need grappling, for example, providing there's an effective defense to the grappling directed towards you, and there's always an effective counter. In Shindokan, we've no kicks above our waist, therefore TKD does, and it was the bane of my existence. So, my effective defense was to jam the TKD practitioner, and it made all of the difference; no one likes an effective jam.

We're all ineffective one way or another, some how and some way.

Just because a style doesn't teach grappling, for example, doesn't mean that the style and/or the practitioner is ineffective. Like always, there's always a way to skin a cat.

[bushido_man96]

I recall your training experiences in regards to TKDs kicks, and I recall that you spent a brief time training in TKD to learn from them, and gain a better understanding of dealing with TKD kicks. I'd propose a similar rout in a non-grappling style, by seeking out a grappling style to supplement training, and learn better how to deal with grappling.

[sensei8]

I recall your training experiences in regards to TKDs kicks, and I recall that you spent a brief time training in TKD to learn from them, and gain a better understanding of dealing with TKD kicks. I'd propose a similar rout in a non-grappling style, by seeking out a grappling style to supplement training, and learn better how to deal with grappling.

Yes, for absolutely sure. Learning TKD for that 1 year was beneficial for me. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Albeit, I didn't have to learn TKD, but I did, and I'm glad that I did, because in time, I would've figured out to jam...several concussions later...those Axe kicks were the core bane of my existence.

[Himokiri Karate]

I think there is a blind spot in style vs style arguments. I feel that the blind spot is training method and the teacher you have. I have recently fused my Tang Soo Do/Karate with Taekwondo. For almost all my life I had a negative impression of TKD because early on I was exposed to bad TKD teachers.

But I started training in TKD less than a year ago. One was the fact that the Tang Soo Do that I love is becoming somewhat obsolete. Another thing was that I wanted to overcome my prejudice of what was a bad TKD in my early child hood. In that, I found one of the GREATEST teachers in martial arts who is a TKD guy. He is also 11 years younger than me but his mind, maturity and IQ makes him truly incredible.

This brings me to training method. My TKD training is BRUTAL! Its not fun, on my way I have to meditate and work on my breath. I do not feel like a gym bro ready to crush weights. The training is extremely cardio heavy and tons of body conditioning as well as being pushed to my absolute limits only to go beyond it. Even Hot Yoga feels like a cool breeze. In boxing I was taught to not waste energy and pace myself. Now I just wanna go BERSERK and see when fatigue hits.

Everything said here is a result of the training methods of my current teacher. Other rival Dojangs promise belts and career opportunities. Our place prepares you for war. You get to a point that you do not care about belts at all. There is no black belt club, there is no belt acceleration program. Tons of dynamic and plyometrics. Had I gone to a different TKD school, I would have been trained differently and I would have been a DIFFERENT martial artist. One thing to add is, the founder of our Dojang is a relatively on the upper echelons of South Korean military. My boxing and Karate/TSD has evolved because of this particular TKD teachers methods. The moves are still the typical WT techniques taught everywhere. But the way I am learning is making all the difference in the world.

So regardless if its Aikido, Sambo, Judo, Boxing, kickboxing, Karate, Kung Fu ,Jujitsu or Shootfighting. The teacher you end up with ends up changing the course of your destiny for better or for worse regardless of style. To add to Sensei8 post, so while its true that its up to the practitioner to determine the effectiveness of the art, its also up to the teacher to explain how their teaching is making them effective students of the art since some practitioners may not know how credible what they are learning is.