Are there any "bad" styles?

Something I wonder whenever I see someone ragging on ninjutsu (especially bujinkan or toshindo), wing chun, and suchlike. Is there any martial art out there that does undeniably simply not work? Every class will have some merit, but I'm talking about the techniques and such, what actually forms the art. I know how important pressure testing and contact training is, and some would argue sparring - is there any system that even with the correct training to make it "fighty" would not stand up in a noncompliant encounter?

Ultimately when people say "this style sucks," do they really mean "this style's training method doesn't work"? (the "I don't like this style" translation is inferred in my experience, whether deliberately or not )

 

Just leavin' this here:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhnvETs4F6Q"]yellow bamboo - YouTube[/ame]

 

Grand Celestial Do http://cosmicfighting.741.com/

Classes start from as little as $400 a month.

 

Of course there are, the point is why they are bad , and usually the reason is that they deviated away from the reason that they were created....usually for money, or fame.you can find very different versions of aikido and Wing chun if you look around ,some work and some are rubbish.....but don't base this on the name of a famous master because they may be rubbish. base it on what works and on WHY it works

 

Cool! only another 2013 years to go!

That site simply HAS to be a spoof! It is hilarious!

 

I know guys who "trane UFC".


That style sucks, they can't fight.

 

Choi Kwang Do is pretty much unmitigated pap

 

Don't know much about bad styles, but when it comes to awesome styles, this is it:

http://cosmicfighting.741.com/


On a more serious note, I can't think of any style that I'd think of as bad, though there are any number of exponents of numerous styles that are. As already stated, even styles that are commonly ragged on would benefit from a change in methodology and would be able to make some, if not much, of their curriculum work. Of course, the question then becomes whether or not such a shift is worth one's investment of time as opposed to training something that already follows tried and true methods.

 

Aw, man, Hapuka--that'll teach me to try and do 14 different things while typing at my computer. You beat me this time. THIS TIME!:yeleyes:

 

Hmm I don't know, you tell me.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZsU-hUHuU4&sns=em"]SANKIDO-RYU SOKE,T.J. ANDERSON Sankido (C.1996) - YouTube[/ame]

 

I don't think there are any bad styles really. What people make up in their mind that they think they are learning vs. the reality of it is what makes things not work in different stylesroll eyes. Take people who wear Tapout or Affliction for example, they train in MMA but absolutely suck, and MMA is definitely proven . . . .

(There are just SO MANY opportunities . . . I can't help myself! :fight4

 

I think there are plenty of arts that are trained in an ineffective manner, that if training was done effectively the techniques would be useful. The problem is that when these arts that generally train in a non-resisting manner change their training methodology then the resulting style looks nothing like the original art. Look at Alan Orrs' Wing Chun, Rik Ellis' Aikido. Locally we have a Ninjutsu school that competes in MMA competitions, and it looks nothing like Taijitsu.

If the art cannot retain its essence when being trained in a resistant manner, then it is useless as a martial art. Therefore I think there are plenty of arts out there that dont work. Kyokushinkai, Nak Muay, Boxers, Wrestlers and Judoka can all retain the essence of their arts when called to use them against a resistant opponent, on the other hand Aikidoka do not seem to be able to fight in a way that is recognisably Aikido, and nor can the practitioners of many other arts.

 

Ah choi kwan do is what I had in mind, I found a video of a grading earlier on my external hard drive, and good lord, it's dire. But is it the style itself (ie, the way they punch and kick etc) or the low standards mcdojo nature of it? Is it universally so bad that on the offchance you hit someone you'll break your own arm from poor mechanics? Especially given its claim of being all physiologically proper, etc.

Makes me a sad panda. Also I don't count yellow bamboo as a martial art, I mean stuff that does (in application) involve contact. Like traditional karate, as far as "fighting" goes, a lot of people might consider it useless because of the deep stances, long punches etc, but it can be tweaked and tightened up to be more applicable. If you train someone right they could be a good fighter with it. Could the same not be said of choi kwan do?

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tib2Urowsdc"]Kiai master 'Yanagiryuken' - YouTube[/ame]

This is pretty much dreck as well. It's like any other human endeavor; you get some people who build propeller planes, you get some people who build jet planes and then you get some that are just awful deathtraps.

 

I think you make an excellent point Kave. Why is it that some martial arts can retain there style in a real fight, but others just can't?

 

I agree, but I'm curious, to what point does the "style" of it need to be retained? In TKD for example, very high spectacular kicks are part of the style but in application I’m sure a good TKD practitioner would use safer lower kicks, karateka would tighten up stances, taichi players would speed up lol, so on.

 

They would still maintain the fundamental essence of the art, the way they strike, move, tactics etc

Unlike what happens in some systems where it reverts to shoddy kickboxing.

 

Not to mention, Jung Su Won

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbGuNVLUFhs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbGuNVLUFhs[/ame]

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMZvqgxK3S8"]Rag Doll Kung Fu - YouTube[/ame]