Open dislike of certain arts

Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussion' started by Kave, May 30, 2014.

  1. Kave

    Kave Lunatic

    WARNING: Wall of text follows

    I am posting a new thread so I don't derail an existing thread (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120902). 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.
     
  2. Please reality

    Please reality Back to basics

    Not quite why you feel it's your responsibility to be the grim reaper to the martial arts out there you feel unworthy but...

    Some traditional arts are taught with aliveness, are based on combat techniques(not sport techniques), and would fare just as good in a MMA, Muay Thai, karate, kickboxing tournament as those arts would fare if the ruleset was made to cater to the techniques and skills of said traditional art. What works in the ring is fine and good, it will help you out in many situations but also ignores certain things that must be dealt with when discussing fighting or self defense or combative arts.

    You don't have time to ground and pound a guy out of consciousness or roll around with one opponent when multiple attackers and weapons are a factor. So again, what is effective depends on the context of what you are training to deal with.

    Wushu is a fine style if you want to learn a modern style of Chinese martial arts, many who train in it compliment it with sanshou to get their more useful skills for fighting. So, even if you don't cry out the ineffectiveness of wushu for fighting, a newbie would probably figure it out pretty quickly. There are more than enough resources out there that anybody interested in learning a new martial art can find out pretty soon what the deal is.

    Speaking as someone who mostly trains in an art form that many consider useless, it can be depending on who you train under and how. I have been pretty vocal about pointing out some of the things that are ineffective or unrealistic within my own art but that doesn't discourage people from believing what they will. So, your angst aside, do you really think that calling out arts as junk will really have that big an effect?

    Without the kinds of conditioning and power development drills that you find in many sportive arts like Muay Thai, boxing, etc., you would soon find that any art will soon fall apart under the realities of fighting. However, many traditional arts had these kinds of conditioning and calisthenics training as well as hitting things hard and throwing things to develop their bodies along with their skills. Randori is pretty much a version of sparring and traditional arts often practice this as well as things outside of kata training.

    So yes, martial sports are the best thing to study if you want to learn to spar or fight in a ring, but they are not the end all be all when it comes to dealing with violence. There are plenty of experts in violence who teach many of the missing aspects that aren't always physical, but no matter what you study, you should research it and know what you are looking for and then you can decide if any particular art meets your criteria. That way one doesn't have to rely on the martial arts police to blow the whistle on any particular art or school for you.:whistleblower:
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2014
  3. Zinowor

    Zinowor Moved on

    If you can't bring your point across without being an ass, then your powers of argumentation are failing you and the guy/girl you're trying to explain something to.

    I also don't agree with your point about it being pointless to add aliveness to an art that does not typically train like that.
     
  4. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
    Again, no one has taken this position.
    Without slamming wushu specifically (because that's not what this thread is about), if you say a style has to be complimented with another to be effective, then that style is by your own admission, completely ineffective
    When people come here asking for our advice and our opinions on what they should train, I think our honestly held opinions have a really big effect.
    So...we shouldn't give our opinions to beginners because they should do the research themselves...but that research shouldn't involve asking knowledgeable people for their opinions?

    What I think Kave is saying is that we sugar coat the truth for the sake of the TOS and he's asking if that's actually counter productive and makes the MAP community a less valuable resource to beginners than it could be.

    I think there's a balance there where we don't turn every beginners thread into a warzone but we can still make it clear that we rate/not a particular style/club.
     
  5. Van Zandt

    Van Zandt Mr. High Kick

    Kave, two problems here.

    1. You want to apply your definition of martial arts to other people. It doesn't work that way.

    2. You want a licence to voice your opinion in a trollish way. It doesn't work that way either.
     
  6. Moosey

    Moosey invariably, a moose Supporter

    There's nothing in the TOS that prevent anyone from saying that they don't like certain arts and explaining why or that they don't think certain arts will meet a person's requirements and explaining why.

    The only times you're likely to get moderated, or even get any stick from anyone, are if you try and post something lacking in constructive content in response to a request for a recommendation (e.g. "What martial arts shall I do?" - "Ninjutsu sucks!"), if you post your opinion of an art in a thread that doesn't benefit from knowing your opinion of the art (e.g. "What's the second form in wing chun called?" - "Wing chun sucks!"), or if you break the terms of service around language (e.g. "I got my green belt in karate last night!" - "****** you, you ******, your **** karate is full of *******").
     
  7. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    Moosey - masked profanity is not allowed. Even ironically.

    ;)
     
  8. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    The problem with saying that a particular MA is 'no good' is that it generally translates as 'that MA is no good for me'. It ignores the fact that other people may have completely different goals to your own.

    I know that martial arts by definition are meant to be effective in a 'real fight' but that doesn't mean that everyone who practises MA's does so because they want to be the best fighter they can be. For some people, getting fitter might be their main priority, and I don't think that there is anything wrong with that.

    I think the important thing is honesty. If someone does (say) Wu Shu because they like doing pretty forms and because they want to be fitter and more flexible then that's fine - provided they aren't under the illusion that they are some kind of invincible warrior monk or whatever. And I do think that MA's (or teachers) which sell themselves as something which they are not SHOULD be held up to public scrutiny.
     
  9. robin101

    robin101 Working the always shift.

    its weird, I used to think like this as well. I knew a guy that did kung fu, I think it was shoalin long fist kung fu, anyway, I thought it was all flowery innefective nonsense, I was training in kyokushin, the full contact baddass karate. So when he offered to spar I thought smugly to myself "this should rid him of some of his martial arts fantasy".

    We started, i moved forward to punch, and he twisted and whipped his foot into my head, i never saw it comming, it wasnt hard, but it staggered me. I tried again, with a kick, he dodged, slammed me in the ribs, then in the head, then, kicked my legs and down i went.

    Long story short. NO arts are completely ineffective. I learned that the hard way. Humbling to say the least.
     
  10. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    I completely agree.

    In all fairness though, a lot of people practice because they want to feel like they can defend themselves, but truthfully I don't think most people who are starting out have any mental will or ability to deal with sparring, yet alone anything more intense. Just because someone says "I wanna learn to fight so I can defend myself" doesn't necessarily mean they want to be thrown in a boxing/kickboxing/muay thai/MMA ring though they might think they do.

    I kinda support this notion actually. A Chunner who tries to pressure test his trapping and chain punches IMO has a better chance of applying his training under pressure than a Chunner who only does it against the air, wooden dummy or in slow, controlled partner work (for example). Not saying necessarily that Chun trapping/chain punching is better than your standard boxing skill set for striking in a competitive environment or anything like that mind, but there's a lot to be said for how you train.

    As for whether or not your class/club/MA is fit for your purposes again really depends on what your purposes are. So it's really not that simple. Practising a MA for good health is just as valid as practising to be a better fighter or for fun in my opinion.

    I think the issue is more whether or not you can express yourself forthrightly without coming across as a troll. And to be fair to the MODs, there's a really thin line between the two sometimes.

    There also needs to be a line drawn that sometimes "that MA is no good" should actually be "that MA is no good for me or my perspective or goals". And that fighting and SD aren't always the same thing.

    That's an interesting way of putting it. But I don't think that's what this is about. I think this is more like pointing out to a kid that 1+1=2, rather than allowing them to think 1+1=16.

    At least from one perspective.

    Except people are dumb and gullible and will happily believe that what they're doing is fit for purpose, especially if they do not have prior experience in what to expect. So you can't expect a noob to figure out in many cases that what they're doing may not be fit for what they feel they want.

    Like this (whatever the hell this is, precursor to Yellow Bamboo maybe?):

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxQ-e0GStpg&index=2&list=PL4B240C31943D20B3"]"Ki" blast by J.J. Quéro - YouTube[/ame]

    Just 'cos I'm being dumb today, I assume you mean something more like supplementing Karate with Boxing, rather than something like supplementing BJJ with Muay Thai to round out the skill set?

    He's got a fair point. But I'm not exactly sure how being more blunt would achieve this effect?
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2014
  11. Zinowor

    Zinowor Moved on

    Talent for combat plays a big role in how effective practitioners can use their training practically.

    I dare anyone to make fun of the blackbelters we have in our dojo. We only train semi-full contact, but you're in for a big surprise if you think they can't fight their way out of paper bag. I'm quite experienced with actual fights, but these guys mop the floor with me and they look totally average and harmless.

    Well, we have some NFL looking BB guys too, but I'm not talking about them. :p
     
  12. Please reality

    Please reality Back to basics

    No need to sugarcoat things but no need to be mean about it either. No matter what you think of aikido, there are aikido practitioners out there who can fight and you don't want them hanging around your wrists(met one here in Japan who was a cop and was more than glad to show me a few aikido moves).

    Sure, but wushu isn't touted as some effective street fighting martial art. Anybody who bothers to look it up will know that it mixes different kata from arts and gymnastics with dance. So, I am missing the point I guess. If someone goes to wushu looking for effective fighting skill, they will wise up pretty quickly. Again, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that wushu isn't a martial art known for its combat effectiveness but is that really what MAP is for? If someone doesn't know that by the time they wonder over here, it's kind of too late one may think. Again, I'm not saying wushu has to be combined with sanshou to make it effective, it is effective in giving kids exercise, some form of discipline, and for a small few, a potential career and way out the hood(however you say it in Mandarin). It wasn't designed for fighting but performance, and it does that very nicely.

    Anyway, any martial art will be effective in certain circumstances, and in your definition above(the bolded part), most martial arts would suck when it comes to dealing with an encounter with assailants armed with firearms. So is boxing a good art for fisticuffs or the ring? Sure. For dealing with other kinds of violence or in other environments, not necessarily.

    I have nothing against telling it like it is, I am the first person to tell people that ninjutsu isn't necessarily going to be the most effective art to study if you are looking for certain things, but there are benefits to studying it as well. So be honest but as some other posters have already pointed out, do it without degrading the art.

    Even arts like Yellow Bamboo are good arts because they attract a certain clientele that I'd rather not have coming to the dojo I train in. If people want to study that and are happy with it, then more power to them. We can't babysit every potential martial artist out there and in the end, the most important thing martial arts teach us is to do things for ourselves so that we can improve and hopefully one day give back to others. But our journey is our own and only we can be responsible for it.
     
  13. Rhythmkiller

    Rhythmkiller Animo Non Astutia

    If you have experience in an art then by all means give what advice you can but i'd wager that most people bashing said art have never even trained it and are completely unqualified to give an opinion on it. These people really should stay quiet.

    If you haven't trained it then you belittle your argument. Unless the art in question is the mind bullet thing Loco posted.

    Baza
     
  14. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    If this place was run like OP suggests, there would be very few constructive threads.

    Most every thread would degenerate into a "your art isn'at any good" thread. That is the reality of what would happen. It would kill constructive conversations.

    I firmly believe the mods here do a difficult job extremely well. It isn't an easy balance to strike. I have seen this being done less well elsewhere and it kills forums. The very fact that this one is so active is a testament to the job the mods do here.

    I have said it before, I will probably say it again. Those who spend so much time focusing on others training and styles need to spend more time training, and less time worrying so much about being the judge of what other train in.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2014
  15. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    I disagree - I don't need to have trained in a specific style to be able to give an educated opinion on its merits, so long as I have expertise in the style's 'domain' (striking/grappling)
     
  16. Pretty In Pink

    Pretty In Pink Moved on MAP 2017 Gold Award

    That's a different problem again though. I've met with people and lots of people on forums talk about how effective aikido is in a fight, yet there are no examples it it happening. Likewise with ninjutsu.

    I feel that perhaps those arts work better in a different context. Previously I gae an example of where and how I see Ninjutsu working via scenario training (which I still think sounds amazing and really want to do :D) yet nobody is doing this, they are trying to apply it to actual fighting and the proofs are that against anyone with skill the Aikidoka will fail, because fighting just does not work that way.

    If someone said "I want to learn Ninjutsu because of culture and help learn more Japanese" I'd be all for it! Yet most people want to learn to fight (I say this rather than "self defence" because often the layman gets confused between the two, unlike you awesome folk) and arts like ninjutsu don't have a proven track record of working in a sporting environment, or a street one (all these CCTV events and no ninjas). :)
     
  17. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    Kave,

    I think there are two problems with what you're suggesting:

    1) There's a bleed effect with these things. If someone asks, "do you think style X would meet these personal needs of mine?" then yes, by all means, give your strongly worded opinion. But the bleed effect, which is what the mods are trying to avoid, is when people's opinions of certain arts leads them to 1) ignore an OP's stated goals in favour of whatever they feel should be important to the OP and 2) make sweeping generalizations about all schools falling under a certain style heading (e.g., taekwondo teaches you to keep your hands down in sparring).

    What you've described here are sort of idealized examples that don't reflect the reality of what gets asked and answered here at MAP. For instance, I'd be really surprised if any of us could produce an actual thread here at MAP that involved someone asking about the combat effectiveness of Modern Wushu, and the uncontested answer being "yeah, totally effective."

    2) Generation after generation of writer, orator, etc. have managed to express strongly held beliefs without being a jackass about it. "You wouldn't be able to fight your way out of a wet paper bag" is not inherently more convincing or earnest than "that style absolutely does not emphasize combat application." But one is couched as an insult. The other is couched as a fairly empirical statement that could be backed up with evidence. More to the point, the intent of one is different from the other. In the former, the tone is belittling. It doesn't give enough detail nor maintain enough objectivity to convey that you're talking about a certain set of criteria. It just sounds generally mocking.

    Honestly, I think we all have to take some responsibility for this whole freedom of expression thing. Nobody ever said that it was a consequence-free environment. Say what you have to say. If it violates ToS, there's a consequence. If it doesn't, but it shapes the conversation in a certain way afterward, that's a consequence too.

    But if your genuine intent is to help newbies avoid one pitfall or another, communication style matters. Have we really helped the newbie if we steer them away from a school that actually does meet their needs just because our remote perception of their school/style selections, based on a link or a photo or another unrelated school, doesn't live up to whatever criteria we hold?

    All anybody's asking is that we keep a little perspective and civility. Two things that make basically any community run more smoothly.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2014
  18. Rhythmkiller

    Rhythmkiller Animo Non Astutia

    Accepted and as long as the advice is constructive then merited as well. I don't know how many threads i have seen were the second post starts "should have done Judo" - utter nonsense.

    On the subject of giving advice, i don't know you or what you do but you seem to be in a position of strength or have accelled in your art to a standard were you can effectively talk about all things striking/grappling regardless of the art?

    Not just you of course but others with the background you have. But since you mentioned it i thought i'd ask.

    Baza
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2014
  19. embra

    embra Valued Member

    'Advice' can easily become rhetoric and ego, but there is a place for informed and balanced presentation.
     
  20. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    I know where my strengths lie and I don't give advice outside of them. I don't know enough about weapons training, so when people ask for advice on weapons training, I don't ask.

    I know enough about gi based grappling and striking to be able to assess different styles of that though.
     

Share This Page