The essance of style

[WhiteBelt]

For some reason people always feel the need to argue over which style is the BEST. At first I felt insulted that anybody could say that my style was the worst, but then it got me thinking about styles in general. I wanted to look into what makes each unique. I'm talking in general here; I'm not comparing.

 

First I thought of the techniques used. Some styles focus on grappling, some on striking, some on internal power, and some say they know it all and do it all. And sometimes, the techniques look very similar and yet aren't.

 

Second I thought of the training methods that each 'style' uses. I put style in quotes because I believe that this is up to the individual, and the schools.

 

Third I thought of how quickly it takes a student to learn the style. Some take a lifetime of dedicated work to master, some you learn quite a bit quicker, and some you can buy.

 

Now an example of what I'm trying to look into here is this. In Karate you learn a large number of techniques which have a huge number of applications. Your training consists of kata, various sparring, self defense situations, and a light amount of physical conditioning when compared to some styles. It with maybe five years of dedicated study you will 'master' karate. But what if we remove a lot of the techniques, keeping only the 'best of the best' and train those even harder than before. Then we focus mainly on sparring, and exercises that will benefit fighting in general. We don't cut any of the old training we just focus more on one area. Is this still karate? All we did was teach fewer techniques, and changed the training a bit.

[jiu-jitsu fighter]

its the same style its just refined, its up to the instructor wether he wants to change the name of the style though, some ppl do this and some don't.

 

yes its still karate its just it has been modidfied

[WhiteBelt]

But then what really differentiates the striking styles other than a name. If the practitioner wanted s/he could simply learn other techniques or train differently when not in school. Then are they learning the school's style still? ... In the end I guess there are no styles, only schools. A punch is a punch is a punch, you just need the imagination to see all the possibilities.

[AndrewGreen]

Instead of thinking about different "styles" try to think about different training methods. The whole idea of having different "styles" automatically rules out any of them as being the best.

 

As soon as you stop trying to throw that kick the most effective way, and start trying to throw it the "correct" way what you do has become stylized and begins a moving away from being effective.

 

The best "style" for you cannot be turned into a style, it only suits one person and is constantly evolving.

[WhiteBelt]

Sounds like JKD philosophy. Here's an interesting thought, is one collection of techniques 'better' than another collection? Or perhaps, is one application of a technique always 'better' than the rest? Obviously something cannot remain the best, as MTFighter says time and time again. Also, the ability of the practioner greatly influences the effectiveness.

[AndrewGreen]

Sounds like JKD philosophy. Here's an interesting thought, is one collection of techniques 'better' than another collection?

 

Yes, but techniques alone are useless. The ability to apply them against another person who is fighting back is what is important.

 

So my answer is yes in the sense that it is the best of two mistakes

Or perhaps, is one application of a technique always 'better' than the rest?

 

Not sure I understand the question...

 

Do you mean one "version" of a technique? Then I'd say no, because it will be slightly different for different people. And the techniques that are used will be different.

 

I predict Tank winning by triangle or flying arm bar in UFC 41...

 

Not going to happen, those techniques don't suit Tank.

Obviously something cannot remain the best, as MTFighter says time and time again. Also, the ability of the practioner greatly influences the effectiveness.

 

If it could, what fun would that be? How could you try and find a better way if it had already been found 50 years ago?

[WhiteBelt]

If it was found 50 years ago, everybody would be the ultimate fighter.

 

Ok, so we have this modern idea that styles only limit the practitioner. That s/he must seek out and experiment to find what is best. Thank you Bruce for this idea (unless somebody else started it before him). What is the point in arguing over which and what is the best then? I can only see the argument as a passionate debate of egos...

 

Anyway, a possibly more important question might be, how do schools evolve in the future with this new philosophy? With the focus on taking only what you need from an style will you lose the art? Many of the more traditional styles focus partially on developing one's self. If people can choose not to study this are they any less a MA? Is it healthy for our community to lose this aspect as well? I doubt the outside world would aprove of a group of people training each other to be killing machines, without any code to keep them in check.

[AndrewGreen]

Nope, your backwards, we have this modern idea that there should be different "styles".

 

Before that, there was no such idea. Bruce said nothing new.

 

And you're right there is no point in arguing which is the best style, unless you have different styles. But if there weren't different styles we could argue about more relevant things.

 

How do other sports evolve? They seem to manage, and there are no distinct "styles" . Imagine if boxers where divided by style.

 

We could have Ali-ryu, Dempsey-ryu, mendoza-ryu, Sullivan-ryu, Tyson-ryu, Broughton-ryu, etc. What would boxing look like now?

 

But that doesn't exist, boxers create there own style and boxing continues to evolve.

 

Did Ali "loose the art" when he did things his own way?

 

Am I more of a artist if I spend my life copying Picasso's painting, or if I create my own original works?

[WhiteBelt]

After reading the Bubishi I was under the impression that having different styles has always been a part of the MAs. Look at the crane gongfus, there are many styles. Unless you consider 1400 and on modern (I admit I probably have the date wrong).

 

The way I understood Bruce was to embrace formlessness. Which to me meant to take what you need and move along... Oh well, learn new things everyday.

[AndrewGreen]

The date is different for different areas. In Okinawa it was really early 20th century, In China I believe it was more 1800's, but I admit that Chinese martial arts history is something I lack knowledge in.

 

Chinese martial arts are a different animal because many are not based on fighting as much as they are performance or spiritual aspects.

 

Acting like an animal is not the way to learn to fight. That doesn't mean don't do it, just if your goal is fighting thats not the way to go.

 

Many of these styles have origins in buhdist temples, you will have a hard time convincing me that a group of buhdist monks where interested in effectiveness over spirituality in there martial arts.