why do I see more style bashing?

benzocaine · Post by **benzocaine** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:45 pm

Right, and IMO a style is a set of preferences or restrictions, stategies and tactics that are overlayed on top of those common movements.

The key word I see there is RESTRICTIONS. Bruce Lee refered to it as the Classical Mess I beleive.

MikeK · Post by **MikeK** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:07 pm

Well restrictions are fine for defining a style if it's for sport (must meet a ruleset) or if a group is trying to preserve an agreed upon definition of what the style is. I don't think these are by default a mess but needed to meet certain well defined goals. You can't be training as a wrestler and expect to enter a boxing match and win using takedowns, or do an excellent Shotokan kata in front of a Uechi test board and get promoted. So restrictions aren't always a bad thing but are just another method for helping to define a style.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:44 pm

I like the grammar (principles) and vocabulary (techniques) analogies for stylistic preferences. Certainly you can open your mouth and babble any kind of noise you want. But some speak the king's english, some communicate without necessarily doing it very well, and some can't seem to communicate at all.

Styles are pretty much the same thing. There really are right and wrong ways to do things. It's not smart to get in up close and personal with your testicles and ribs exposed. It's not smart to lead with your face, or expose your back and neck to your partner. And the principles you apply up close are a bit different from the principles you apply more at a distance. Then there's the idea that you are communicating with someone rather than talking at them. One cannot just babble without regard to what the other person is doing or "saying."

There is also the issue of how efficiently and effectively one "communicates."

- Bill

MikeK · Post by **MikeK** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:20 pm

It's not smart to lead with your face, or expose your back and neck to your partner.

But you do run into exceptions to those bad practices. It's OK to lead with your face when up close if you are head butting the other guy, it's OK to expose your back and neck to your partner if you driving a spinning back kick into their bladder or a spinning hook kick into their kidneys (been on the recieving end of that one and pissed blood for a few days).

I think style is important at the beginning as it gives a framework to learn within, but as someone learns more and more the framework gets looser and may eventually drop away, or you can keep adding onto the framework.

jorvik · Post by **jorvik** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:37 pm

quote
"Well restrictions are fine for defining a style if it's for sport (must meet a ruleset) or if a group is trying to preserve an agreed upon definition of what the style is. I don't think these are by default a mess but needed to meet certain well defined goals. You can't be training as a wrestler and expect to enter a boxing match and win using takedowns, or do an excellent Shotokan kata in front of a Uechi test board and get promoted. So restrictions aren't always a bad thing but are just another method for helping to define a style."

I pretty much agree with this

.....folks define a "style". In China a "style" was often a Sifu's preffered techniques for winning a fight or their preferred strategy. Look at the Gracies their prefered stratagey was to groundfight and their techniques were chosen to help them do this.they didn't go and practice high kicks or kata.........so I think that it is very important to know what your style does and why it does it and then to ask the question..is this for me?

MikeK · Post by **MikeK** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:44 pm

I think that it is very important to know what your style does and why it does it and then to ask the question..is this for me?

I'm going to muddy things a bit. What if the instructor tailors things not on his preferences but to the needs of a group or even to each indivdual student? Would a style exist?

JimHawkins · Post by **JimHawkins** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:04 am

benzocaine wrote: Right, and IMO a style is a set of preferences or restrictions, stategies and tactics that are overlayed on top of those common movements.

The key word I see there is RESTRICTIONS. Bruce Lee refered to it as the Classical Mess I beleive.

Only if you see a system or set of strategies as restrictive..

Say it's a few hundred years ago and your uncle is a great hunter--as it so happens, he shows you, as a kid, how he learned to hunt, survive and eat--is this "restrictive"?

Seems to me it would only be "restrictive" if you go hungry, or if you are obsessed with doing it "your way" whatever that means.

Over the millennia learning how to hunt and fight and survive was a hell of a lot more important than--"doing it my way" again whatever that means. In reality all that matters is that you catch the damned fish, no one at the dinner table is going to give a rat's ass how you caught it.

More than that, learning a method, no matter how deep, is a beginning and a good method will make for a good beginning and vise versa.. Any thinking being will later add what is his uniquely his own--something else Bruce said.

And IMO what Bruce was talking about in terms of "messes" has more to do with robotic performance, robotic obedience to empty tradition and a general lack of a thinking growing "student".

Stryke · Post by **Stryke** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:07 am

Jim ... someones stolen your password ?

jorvik · Post by **jorvik** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:45 pm

Quote
"I'm going to muddy things a bit. What if the instructor tailors things not on his preferences but to the needs of a group or even to each indivdual student? Would a style exist?"

Well I suppose you would have to ask to what degree? When I did Tai-chi it was basically mostly forms because that is what the people wanted.and only a little pushing hands which was what I liked

..so the class was tailored to people's needs.
When I did aikido some of the folks used to train punches and kicks at a seperate venue......one guy was graded to blackbelt

...I asked him what in? he said aikido...so you have a guy who can only do high kicks, doesn't know any Aikido throws or breakfalls .and yet he is a blackbelt. Obviously to the guys who do proper aikido he is a fool with no skill.
so I guess it is what you tell the folks when you teach them

dejsis · Post by **dejsis** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:53 pm

MikeK wrote:
I'm going to muddy things a bit. What if the instructor tailors things not on his preferences but to the needs of a group or even to each indivdual student? Would a style exist?

Yes, because there would still be certain set of "constrains" or moves that you would do different then in other styles.
To give an example from another art form. If you are a painter and you paint as an impressionist, your painting will definitely look different then let's say a cubist's. However within impressionism each painter did things slightly differently, based on whatever suited their presonality. Even though you would recognize it as an impressionist painting you would also recognize whether it was a Monet or a Van Gogh. Quite a big difference in their personal interpretation, yet they have both used certain similar technics and were striving for a similar feel with their paintings thus they are both classified as impressionists. In a very strict sense of the interpretation even if only one person practices a certain variation of an artform it can still be called a style.

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:31 pm

I think all styles, even BJJ are all in the end the same.......

But differences will always exist.

Is there a style really like taiji or Ba gua?

I mean you look at shotokan, a 'hard' style but in higher levels they open thier hands up a bit more do, more sanchina nd become more 'internal' in power generation and approche.

But they dont have the 'wavy' motions of pa kua, the foot work is a bit like hsing i but...

Or look at chin-na and BJJ.

Both are grappling styles, but look at different they are.

jorvik · Post by **jorvik** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:18 pm

quote
"Is there a style really like taiji or Ba gua?"

I'm afraid there is and Tai-Chi has more written about it than most other arts. so you know if you are doing Tai-Chi or not

Also for "internal" styles there are certain ways of generating power......so if you practice a hard art....it will never become "internal" because they use a whole different method to develop power

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:21 pm

But really though, how do i have not seen one karate guy or wing chun guy really look like he's doing something like those guys do.

Is wing chun and boxing the same?

No, completely different from eachother.

JimHawkins · Post by **JimHawkins** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:10 am

AAAhmed46 wrote: I think all styles, even BJJ are all in the end the same.......

AAAhmed46 wrote: Is wing chun and boxing the same?

No, completely different from eachother.

Well, which is it?

I can find as many similarities in boxing and WCK as differences.. I can find almost nothing of BJJ in WCK..

But when folks start to "box" with their WCK it looks a lot like boxing... I can also find many similarities in the mechanics of various things.. But boxing is limited to what is legal in the ring and WCK is not--so it goes on to do "other" stuff as well..

AAAhmed46 wrote: But really though, how do i have not seen one karate guy or wing chun guy really look like he's doing something like those guys do.

Too vague.. Like what?

Tai Chi does have different theory and mechanics..as does some Bagua.. Again these things are different but you have to compare quality vs quality otherwise it's a crap shoot of crap..

==============

Anyway on an aside and just for fun..

Here is a short clip I put together for schits and giggles of <at that time> a new student, Alex, learning the very first two person drill in the system in my imaginary "driveway dojo"..

Please excuse the dash of R rated lyrics in the sound track I didn't have time to edit..

Hope you like..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAQktoHADT0

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:25 am

Im saying all styles have similarities because of human anotomy.

But some approche things completly differently.

But still SOME styles are so damn different in philosophy from one another that they have different goals in the end.

Of coarse other styes will be similar to that style.

Like kyokushin and shotokan, very similar.

But kyokushin and wing chun....different.

Or wing chun and TKD....different.

But same in that they both are striking styles that focus on pounding and hitting that use two arms and two legs and a head.

Boxing and wing chun....boxers like to attack from different angles, have a hunched stance, dont really trap.

WIng chun dudes have a different posture and trap, love to go down the centerline as a preferance.

And my Taiji/pa kua description was vague because its hard to describe.

But here it goes since your gonna be picky:

The pa kua guys seem to love a ''wave'' type motion that alot of 'hard' style dont seem to have, the way they move thier body, the mechanics are very very different.