WARNING: Wall of text follows
I am posting a new thread so I don't derail an existing thread (http://ift.tt/RJhbW9). In that thread it was noted by Simon that
Personally I feel that MAP is too gentle in this regard. When people new to the martial arts ask if they should start training in an art which I consider terrible I find myself using language like “quality control in that art is a bit suspect and you may have difficulty finding a good school” in order to avoid the ire of the mods. Of course, what I actually want to say is “your selection of art does not meet your requirements, and if you take that art you will never be able to fight your way out of a wet paper bag”.
I don't want to say this because I have a desire to slag off arts, rather I am driven by a desire to help people by providing what I see as good guidance so they don't end up with 10 years of training, a much lighter wallet, and no ability to actually fight. People come here for advice, and I think to let a martial arts newbie get sucked into paying for training in an art that doesn't meet their needs would be unfortunate. I understand that there are a few delicate flowers that post here, and it is nice to avoid hurting feelings, but sometimes the truth needs to be spoken forthrightly. Of course if someone wants to get involved in martial arts with no actual concern for developing ability to fight I'm not going to suggest boxing. If someone has health issues and wants to develop an ability to safely fall but has no desire to be punched, then I might recommend something like aikido. The majority of people that come here seem to want to learn how to fight however, and most martial arts seem absolutely terrible at instilling any sort of fighting skill.
With regard to pointing out the inadequacies of certain arts, I have heard it repeatedly said on this site that how you train is more important than what you train. The underlying message appears to be that all arts are equally valid, it is just training methods that differ (i.e. any art is useful so long as you train hard and with aliveness). This is clearly nonsensical because it presupposes that alive training can be introduced into any art without altering it to a point where it is no longer recognisable, and that all techniques are equally valid. In my opinion neither of these presuppositions are true.
Looking at whether aliveness can be added to all arts without changing the art to a point where it is unrecognisable, it is clear that it generally can't. This is evidenced by the fact that a large number of arts have attempted to add aliveness, and what happens is generally one of two things. Either the practitioners eventually end up doing something that appears to be a copy of an art that already practices with aliveness, or they try to keep the stances and techniques from their art, and by doing so condemn their attempts at aliveness to never develop much beyond random flailing. For example, once aliveness is introduced every striking art either rapidly starts to look identical to kickboxing/muay thai/boxing (or at least a bad copy) or it turns into a flailing mess. Look at people that have introduced aliveness to arts that traditionally lack it, Alan Orr tried to add aliveness to wing chun and now he churns out competent fighters but can anyone spot anything that resembles wing chun when they compete? I can't. Watch a video of two MMA fighters, one trained by Alan Orr and one with a standard MMA background, you would be hard pressed to pick which one trains in wing chun.
With grappling, there are such a wide range of sport-arts with such a wide range of rulesets that we have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't, as most techniques are allowed in at least one of the rulesets and there are a limited number of ways you can damage another person (there are only so many ways you can choke someone). Cross-pollination between arts seems to be at an all-time high (to a point where judo felt the need to change their rules to limit this cross-pollination) and wrestling, sub-wrestling, judo, BJJ, sambo and many others are all contributing hugely to our knowledge of grappling. We are even getting to know how grappling works alongside striking from arts like sport ju-jitsu, combat sambo, MMA, and even thai boxing. As soon as a traditional art introduces aliveness to their grappling then we know what it is going to look like (if it's going to be effective), based on factors such as:
a). gi or no-gi
b). is striking also integrated
c). what techniques are considered fight enders
Sure, grappling is still undergoing evolution, but the question of what works at a basic level is fairly settled now, and your traditional style is not likely to bring much that hasn't already been tried. If you want to add aliveness to the grappling in your art it is either going to have to look a whole lot like an existing sport-based style (or a blend of sport-based styles), or its probably going to be really bad.
Techniques are really important, a non-sport martial art is largely defined by the collection of techniques it contains with maybe a small nod towards a philosophy of fighting. It doesn't matter if you train 12 hours a day if the techniques you are training consist of striking someone with your little finger or trying to headbutt someone in the buttocks. No matter how hard you train bad techniques it's never going to make them effective, especially not against someone who spends the same amount of time training in moves that are effective and have a high rate of success. But if in order to add aliveness to your training you change the techniques then you are no longer doing the same art. If you take karate and replace the chambered punches and low held hands with a boxing guard and strikes from the chin, then you aren't doing karate, you are kickboxing.
In summation I believe that people on MAP shouldn't be discouraged from speaking forthrightly on any art. If (as an example) a person new to both martial arts and MAP says I want to learn how to fight and I'm thinking of attending the local wushu school I want to be able to say “wushu is a terrible martial art, in fact it is only a martial art in the same way tricking is a martial art (i.e. it contains kicks and punches). If you intend to learn to fight by training in wushu, don't! If you should ignore this advice may God have mercy on your soul”. I don't want to have to say “wushu will help build flexibility and fitness which can be useful for fighting, but let's see if there might be another school near you which could better meet your needs” which completely fails to allow strength of feeling to be communicated.
I am posting a new thread so I don't derail an existing thread (http://ift.tt/RJhbW9). In that thread it was noted by Simon that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon (Post 1074856773) Too many threads being derailed because someone doesn't like the art someone wants to train in. |
Personally I feel that MAP is too gentle in this regard. When people new to the martial arts ask if they should start training in an art which I consider terrible I find myself using language like “quality control in that art is a bit suspect and you may have difficulty finding a good school” in order to avoid the ire of the mods. Of course, what I actually want to say is “your selection of art does not meet your requirements, and if you take that art you will never be able to fight your way out of a wet paper bag”.
I don't want to say this because I have a desire to slag off arts, rather I am driven by a desire to help people by providing what I see as good guidance so they don't end up with 10 years of training, a much lighter wallet, and no ability to actually fight. People come here for advice, and I think to let a martial arts newbie get sucked into paying for training in an art that doesn't meet their needs would be unfortunate. I understand that there are a few delicate flowers that post here, and it is nice to avoid hurting feelings, but sometimes the truth needs to be spoken forthrightly. Of course if someone wants to get involved in martial arts with no actual concern for developing ability to fight I'm not going to suggest boxing. If someone has health issues and wants to develop an ability to safely fall but has no desire to be punched, then I might recommend something like aikido. The majority of people that come here seem to want to learn how to fight however, and most martial arts seem absolutely terrible at instilling any sort of fighting skill.
With regard to pointing out the inadequacies of certain arts, I have heard it repeatedly said on this site that how you train is more important than what you train. The underlying message appears to be that all arts are equally valid, it is just training methods that differ (i.e. any art is useful so long as you train hard and with aliveness). This is clearly nonsensical because it presupposes that alive training can be introduced into any art without altering it to a point where it is no longer recognisable, and that all techniques are equally valid. In my opinion neither of these presuppositions are true.
Looking at whether aliveness can be added to all arts without changing the art to a point where it is unrecognisable, it is clear that it generally can't. This is evidenced by the fact that a large number of arts have attempted to add aliveness, and what happens is generally one of two things. Either the practitioners eventually end up doing something that appears to be a copy of an art that already practices with aliveness, or they try to keep the stances and techniques from their art, and by doing so condemn their attempts at aliveness to never develop much beyond random flailing. For example, once aliveness is introduced every striking art either rapidly starts to look identical to kickboxing/muay thai/boxing (or at least a bad copy) or it turns into a flailing mess. Look at people that have introduced aliveness to arts that traditionally lack it, Alan Orr tried to add aliveness to wing chun and now he churns out competent fighters but can anyone spot anything that resembles wing chun when they compete? I can't. Watch a video of two MMA fighters, one trained by Alan Orr and one with a standard MMA background, you would be hard pressed to pick which one trains in wing chun.
With grappling, there are such a wide range of sport-arts with such a wide range of rulesets that we have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't, as most techniques are allowed in at least one of the rulesets and there are a limited number of ways you can damage another person (there are only so many ways you can choke someone). Cross-pollination between arts seems to be at an all-time high (to a point where judo felt the need to change their rules to limit this cross-pollination) and wrestling, sub-wrestling, judo, BJJ, sambo and many others are all contributing hugely to our knowledge of grappling. We are even getting to know how grappling works alongside striking from arts like sport ju-jitsu, combat sambo, MMA, and even thai boxing. As soon as a traditional art introduces aliveness to their grappling then we know what it is going to look like (if it's going to be effective), based on factors such as:
a). gi or no-gi
b). is striking also integrated
c). what techniques are considered fight enders
Sure, grappling is still undergoing evolution, but the question of what works at a basic level is fairly settled now, and your traditional style is not likely to bring much that hasn't already been tried. If you want to add aliveness to the grappling in your art it is either going to have to look a whole lot like an existing sport-based style (or a blend of sport-based styles), or its probably going to be really bad.
Techniques are really important, a non-sport martial art is largely defined by the collection of techniques it contains with maybe a small nod towards a philosophy of fighting. It doesn't matter if you train 12 hours a day if the techniques you are training consist of striking someone with your little finger or trying to headbutt someone in the buttocks. No matter how hard you train bad techniques it's never going to make them effective, especially not against someone who spends the same amount of time training in moves that are effective and have a high rate of success. But if in order to add aliveness to your training you change the techniques then you are no longer doing the same art. If you take karate and replace the chambered punches and low held hands with a boxing guard and strikes from the chin, then you aren't doing karate, you are kickboxing.
In summation I believe that people on MAP shouldn't be discouraged from speaking forthrightly on any art. If (as an example) a person new to both martial arts and MAP says I want to learn how to fight and I'm thinking of attending the local wushu school I want to be able to say “wushu is a terrible martial art, in fact it is only a martial art in the same way tricking is a martial art (i.e. it contains kicks and punches). If you intend to learn to fight by training in wushu, don't! If you should ignore this advice may God have mercy on your soul”. I don't want to have to say “wushu will help build flexibility and fitness which can be useful for fighting, but let's see if there might be another school near you which could better meet your needs” which completely fails to allow strength of feeling to be communicated.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire