[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I’m not going to argue with you about practice. You’re completely correct that if you practice crap then you’ll not get very far.
But your post also works in my favor: A guy who trains like a powerlifter in a 24 hr fatness is analogous to a guy who pours his heart and soul into practicing and UNDERSTANDING his karate’s pros and cons and thinks of new ways to apply the techniques. Or whatever. The point I was making is that it is not so much the art as the artist.[/quote]
You kind of missed my point. A guy that pours his heart and soul into TKD isn’t analogous to my 24 Hour powerlifter; a better analogy would be a guy who only has a TKD school in his town, but he trains boxing there. He recognizes the inherent weakness of the system surrounding him and, despite the cultural pressure, trains in an effective manner.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Come on. That’s an obvious fallacy of generalization if I’ve ever seen one. Dillman and company are to real traditional martial arts as AB-DOER INFOMERCIALS are to REAL WEIGHT TRAINING. In other words, they are largely a result of the marketing necessity to find a new “niche” or angle or “cutting edge” technique to exploit for profit.[/quote]
So Dillman and the guy teaching the Little Dragons aren’t particularly representative of a high level practitioner in a traditional style. No one really argues that. My point, however, is that even a high level practitioner of a traditional art is inferior to a journeyman boxer, almost every time. The high level practitioner may be very good at what he does, but what he does is not very effective.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
In response to those who are dismissing traditional MA. Muay-thai is a traditional MA, but everybody seems to rave about how effective it is in the “real world”. It’s been around for hundreds of years in some form, if not longer.[/quote]
Generally speaking, when we say “traditional” martial art, we mean arts that are not based on full-contact competition. This isn’t completely accurate, but it is how the term is used, so I roll with it.
To clarify, I’m drawing a distinction between arts like Muay Thai, Boxing, Judo, Greco-Roman Wrestling, BJJ, Sambo, et cetera and arts like Karate, TKD, Aikido, et cetera.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Well, there are Taekwondo and karate people who are training the same way as these muay thai guys and competing in bare knuckle competitions. So they don’t get the same respect as muay thai? They have the same methods: they have knees, elbows, leg kicks, groin kicks, arm breaks, trips, etc.[/quote]
If they are traiing the same way as a Thai fighter, and have the same moves as a Thai fighter, and compete in the same kinds of competitions as a Thai fighter, then they are Thai fighters, not TKDers or Karateka.
Each art brings with it a certain world-view, a way that a fight “should” progress, the way a man “should” look as he is dealing with an opponent. That is what defines the art. When you cease to match up to that world-view, you cease to be a practitioner of the art. I could call my self a Judoka all I want, but if my primary way of dealing with a situation is to throw jabs to set up for a big hook, I’m not really doing Judo.
People that spar with contact and under pressure soon realize that the world-view the “traditional,” the non-contact arts such as Karate and TKD do not match up to reality. If you behave in the way these arts say you should, you will lose. Because of this, their styles adapt and change and, eventually, cease to be Karate or TKD.
A punch is not simply a punch, a kick is not simply a kick. There is a correct way to do all of these things. Arts based on sparring uncover these methods. Arts based on theory do not.
