Just pondering a question I thought would be an interesting discussion potentially What are peoples personal thoughts on schools that are advertised out there as a mixture of however many different styles and called something totally new and being taught there by the 'founder' etc? I personally am not a fan, I think people can always study as many martial arts as they like and encourage the same, but I just don't a point in taking drinks and drabs of 'whatever' and making something and passing it off your own creation... I've always preferred that if something is offered as 'the modern version' or similar that straight away pits me off as whatever that person has liked and taken, may not be the same as I would like it, I have always in theory thought I would much rather find the earliest and most traditional fo possible so that I would not be missing out on vital parts of a martial art that someone else had decided they didn't like and had 'cut out'... Anyway that's just my view and interested in seeing what other people think and where they stand ))
Styles all start somewhere. People train in a way, test it, see if it works, find some success or try to differentiate themselves for various reasons. Gracie BJJ CSW Miletich Fight System etc etc I always go with the theory of "not what you train, but how you train" idea.
And that's just my point, slowly it is just degenerating away, each new 'master' that takes parts away that they l Personally like and teach as a new type of martial art, and the next person who takes less away again. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing at all, as you said most have come from that. But where does it stop? And mushroom I agree too, everything starts somewhere Just my belief and wanted to find out. BJJ is a good example, I am not one personably for the grappling arts but if I was to learn jujutsu, I would want to study what the people that developed bjj first did instead of learning the bits and pieces they took that they felt worked for THEM, I MIGHT find something they didn't like and find it fits me perfectly...
If I had to pick I would much rather be a master of one striking style with no groundgame, then a groundgame-style with no striking. You only need to master basic grappling to take away dangers of going to the ground. Modern MMA has shown BJJ alone does not longer last. The tricks people fell for in 1993 are long since past.
And again my opinion only, and genuinely not to offend people with bad wording, but I don't see MMA as a martial art as much as a sport anymore much like boxing, at one stage it was people mixing and matching skills but they never changed the name and taught and marketed it as a style, now it is but what parts have they got and what do they not know about that was also embedded in those various styles that may suit different people? As soon as a martial art's focus is soley a sport I feel it loses that badge and drifts closer to being just another combat sport, and there is much much more to a real martial art to me than winning a competition. (Sorry to be annoying people with my repetition of being my opinion etc, but I am honestly trying to work things in a way that won't offend or run people the wrong way which can be hard if they read it the wrong way or out of context so please understand that for the discussions sake I am just wording thoughts through text and personal thoughts, not trying to **** anyone off . )
An MMA club has identical drills between styles. There really is no difference, you just switch between classes. And there is no magic science of how to practice. Only so many techniques and ways you learn it.
Is this because you want some connection with something historical? Or are you under the assumption that "traditional" is more effective than what modern systems are doing?
No no, definitely not a question of effectiveness, that's not for me either, not a 'fighter' I enjoy all martial arts for the traditional and spiritual aspects personally, just wanted to see what others thought while I was bored and pondering lol.
If one is going to mix styles enough to create a "new" style- so to speak, I am ok with it if the following things are true.......... 1. The founder has a deep enough knowledge of each style in the mix. If they only dabble in stuff, they don't have enough knowlege to muck with it or to pass it on in any way. 2. They truly have something new to offer that is productive. Too many people are interested in doing it for their own ego or marketing as the primary motivation. 3. They are honest about the origins and what they are teaching. If these three things are not met, I personally am not ok with it. But that is my personal feelings, I won't really waste time worrying about what others are doing either. I will just shake my head, not think much of it, and then move on.
Well you are right, MMA isn't a style, it is a sport/rule set. Much like K-1 isn't Muay Thai. People have made they're own styles and been successful, most however fall short of creating something new, and instead just create a pointless off-shoot for no other reason than to call themselves master.
As for the rest of that post; Martial arts are created for combat. Primary purpose, first and foremost, strip it all away and it is about violence and controlling violence. Competition is the closest way to test yourself and actually know what works when you're fighting for your life (and I can tell you that that is exactly what it feels like). When karate schools use to fight each other in Japan to see which school was better, was that any better or worse than now? Because it was in a gi and they bowed first? When Musashi went around KILLING people in duels, was he any better or worse than a fighter now because he also wrote poetry? Please don't belittle something you haven't done yourself.
I like it aaradia very good ways of looking at things thanks for the feedback And chadderz I didn't belittle anything, if you will read the posts again, that exactly what I have been trying to avoid and I apologize for the offense. This post was NEVER intended as a traditional vs MMA, and was using it purely as the first example in my mind but as usual worded poorly, sorry. What I am meaning is more like the places that advertise and market as 'Come and learn our original style karate fu, a modern take on martial arts for the streets with founder and grand master such and such'..... The MMA example I have was also just opinion on something I was thinking about and certainly in no means was trying to knock any art or would ever say something was better than something else, that's just stupid. Again apologies, and thanks for contributing
There is nothing more humbling than losing, nothing more liberating than defeating your opponent. Competition is what it's like to fight for your life. True martial spirit is shown through competition and not through bowing, shouting out commandments or earning a black belt. What do you feel a martial art loses when it becomes "just another combat sport"?
I agree with you there, I do understand what it's like to compete and win and lose, to hit and get hot and to feel the satisfaction of hard work paying off, I would never think to try and take away that from ANYBODY. I agree also that martial arts goes beyond a black belt, but I feel once it's on the public arena as a spectator sport it just seems to lose something from it's history I suppose. Once again, this is just how I look at it and fully respect anyone and everyone that trains no matter what, please believe I have the most up most respect for you my friend, it would take so so much to be able to do what you do and I don't mean to sound like I am taking away from you with what I say... Again apologies for ANY offense, please believe I do not mean to sounds disrespectful
I understand what you mean Anyway, what do other people think of the original question? Not in a sport vs traditional sense as I didn't mean it that way
I don't believe things are just taken away when styles change. things are added too. take for example fighting with a sword. doesnt make much sense in a modern context. but escrima makes the sword and blunt weapons as synonymous so the same concepts apply but blunt weapons in modern times have become emphasised. BJJ as another thing that added - it developed an intricate ground work game on top of judo and incorporated basic wrestling
You could say precisely the same in reverse. You only need learn the basics of striking to avoid the dangers of a striker. It would be just as true. (Read: Sometimes true. Sometimes not.) The successful strikers in MMA have mastered basic grappling, it's true. But mastering basic grappling is no small feat. And, if you're not going to get grappled into oblivion, you better mean "mastered" when you say "mastered." So your pick is your pick obviously. But don't think that you're uncovering a truth here. Just a preference.
