How important to you in Marial Arts?

Stillweak

When choosing or rating a martial arts school, how import is lineage to you?

Just my humble opionion but it would mean nothing to me as I feel just because a Coach can say he trained under somebody great, does of course not mean that he himself is great. If somebody trains in a great system, it does not mean they can proform it.
Im sure Yip Man and Royce Gracie had a few muppets come through their doors who have gone on to drop their names around.


How important is belt or grade to you?

Again, just my opionion. It does not mean too much to me. I would prefer to look at who else trains there and how they compete or proform.


[ Note ]
I know some of this has been covered before on boards, but there are still arguments about who is training this, what gives him the right to coach that, how is he qualified is he .....

smacl

The term means nothing in of itself, but if you've got a line of coaches who've competed and won, and then gone on to teach students who've competed and won, who've then gone on to teach other students who've competed and won, it suggests they're doing something right. The style I practice, practical tai chi chuan, seems to follow this direction through the coaches I've been lucky enough to train with. Cheng Tin Hung was a great teacher and successful competitor, as were his students, including Dan Docherty. Dan is a great teacher and successful competitor, as were his students including Paul Mitchell and Niall Keane among many others. Paul and Niall are great teachers and successful competitors, as are their students, etc...

IMHO, if you look at the achievements rather than the name, you wont go for wrong. In my view, one very simple measure of a good teacher is that they'be been a successful competitor, and they've taught successful competitors. String a few together over a number of decades, and you've got yourself a respectable lineage. As you start going too much further back, you're dealing with hearsay and mythology.

Peetrik

Means absolutely squat to me. Even the coach themselves having been a belt/title holder doesn't really mean all that much as it's quite likely the governing body etc either is gone or the standard is different than when the coach was competing.

Even if it is all still the same, being a good competitor doesn't necessarily make you a good coach and vice versa.

First and foremost is whether the gym is consistently producing good quality fighters and secondly are the fighters winning.

Mellor

Firstly I should say that its not ultimately important to me. Everyone should be judged on their own merits, and also the clubs and coach on their collective results.
Here in Oz, there's a lot of politics at the top levels of BJJ. Only promote people if they’ll are open affiliate gyms, etc. The Brazilians can be very elitist. Which I think is largely nonsense.

The linage or lack there of doesn't mean anything in itself. If somebody can achieve the same thing, what difference does it make.
However there have been people who claimed to have gotten belts from X or Y without the skills or results to back it up. That's a different scenario.

Stillweak wrote: »

Im sure Yip Man and Royce Gracie had a few muppets come through their doors who have gone on to drop their names around.

I'm sure there have been purples (even blues) who parted ways and went on to open clubs and used Royce or the Gracie name to promote themselves. But I think for the most part, he's only promoted a handful of blackbelts. I'm sure not very gracie BB has the same standard for promotion.

Izanaki

I believe a teacher must keep on being a student first of all. What's more, he has to be coherent with what he's teaching. His art should reflect his way of living every day.

IMHO A result on a competition (either of the teacher himself or of his students) is the combination of too many factors to be a metric for the judgment.

smacl

it's quite likely the governing body etc either is gone or the standard is different than when the coach was competing.

True, but you can only be judged by the results you get in the competitions that were available to you at the time. What you also see is that if you get one or two strong competitive teams on a circuit, everyone else starts training harder as a result, and the general standard rises. Similarly, if the number of people competing in a given event drops, the standard follows.

Izanaki wrote: »

IMHO A result on a competition (either of the teacher himself or of his students) is the combination of too many factors to be a metric for the judgment.

It is a weak metric, but gets better as you look at multiple results over a number of coaches and their students. While one result is largely meaningless, coaches that have consistently produced competition winners in the past are much more likely to continue to do so in the future. In my experience those coaches tend to have competed and won themselves.

What other useful metric is there? Belts, gradings and/or lineage? The fact that a killer style is the chosen martial art of the Uzbeki special forces, and everyone trains in old army uniforms? Hard enough to describe what is good martial arts, much more difficult to qualify.

Izanaki

smacl wrote: »

What other useful metric is there? Belts, gradings and/or lineage? The fact that a killer style is the chosen martial art of the Uzbeki special forces, and everyone trains in old army uniforms? Hard enough to describe what is good martial arts, much more difficult to qualify.

Indeed first we should clarify the difference between martial art and fighting sport/style. Systema, Krav Maga and all fighting styles developed by army forces have totally different goals and backgrounds from Aikido, Judo or Kendo. It's another story anyway, but to answer your question this must be kept in mind.

smacl

Izanaki wrote: »

Indeed first we should clarify the difference between martial art and fighting sport/style. Systema, Krav Maga and all fighting styles developed by army forces have totally different goals and backgrounds from Aikido, Judo or Kendo. It's another story anyway, but to answer your question this must be kept in mind.

For any martial art, the best approach is to take a bunch of classes in a given club and see how you like it. If you like it, it is good for you, whatever anyone else's experience might be.

A metric in this context, however, suggests an objective measure for ranking the relative efficacy of the training provided by different coaches and clubs, in terms of how good their students are at whatever they purport to do. For this, I'd tend to run with the results of an open competition, as opposed to the opinion of any given teacher or teachers, regardless of their lineage. Yes, it is still flawed, but what other objective measurement can you make? IMO, a good martial artist will adapt their technique to meet the constraints imposed by a competition.

Peetrik

smacl wrote: »

but you can only be judged by the results you get in the competitions that were available to you at the time. What you also see is that if you get one or two strong competitive teams on a circuit, everyone else starts training harder as a result, and the general standard rises. Similarly, if the number of people competing in a given event drops, the standard follows.

All true but I was more talking about where people get nonsense title shots on their 3rd fight. Those titles/belts mean nothing IMO and I have no real way of knowing the legitimacy of the event 30yrs later.

My point is that if you watch footballers from 40 or 50 years ago the standard is absolutely muck compared to the standard today. Regardless of how the likes of George Best is hailed as an all time great that level of play wouldn't cut it nowadays. Lineage is no indicator of if a club is any good or not.

Mellor wrote: »

The linage or lack there of doesn't mean anything in itself. If somebody can achieve the same thing, what difference does it make.

+1

pearsquasher

In non-sports martial arts, lineage is important if the generations that preceded you survived a skirmish/battle/war and pass on their tips to the next generation. They don't say "this will save your ass" - rather they say "I found this useful, you may too, so here you are". The vehicle that contains these tip are paired kata.

Through Darwinian processes, the useful stuff gets kept and the useless gets dumped or modified... so each generation adapts the kata to suit their contemporary outlook. The lineage is therefore as important as the stock you place in this method. I think acknowledging the past generations that contributed to the skills your practice now is as important as, say, a young kid acknowledging how there grand-dad survived WW2.

But what about today? There are very few kill zones where martial arts holds sway now? Well if the martial art has many member of law enforcement/mental health professionals who consider it worthy and use it in their jobs AND contribute to its knowledge base, I would say the art is worth doing. I've been to seminars hosted by teachers who are also police and ex-army and I tend to trust their judgement on the martial art.

What about grades/belts? In non-sports martial arts, belts and grades are only meaningful between two people.. the student and the teacher. Its a symbol of their relationship and the fact that the student is progressing in the manner the teacher wants.

So saying to, say a work colleague, "I'm a 2nd degree in x" means absolutely nothing. Even saying this to another teacher in the same art means nothing. Its between you and your teacher. If you think its unimportant but your teacher does... the relationship is probably flawed. Its a personal thing really but the net result is that through natural peer review and through networks of teachers following the same lineage, similar grades have similar skills and the grade can become somewhat of an informal measure...but its no guarantee.

My two yen

Doug Cartel

Anyone who says lineage is unimportant, just imagine if you came across someone with zero lineage. Someone who straight up told you, "I just made this up myself." You'd be a bit sceptical of their ability, wouldn't you? You'd probably put the bar fairly high for them to demonstrate that they were not full of it.

That said, anything beyond two or three generations isn't particularly meaningful to me. Who's your teacher, where did he learn his stuff? Anything beyond that and the trail gets too murky. I don't think there are very many styles that can actually trace themselves back to the battlefield. Krav maga, and the ones based on WW2 combatives are about all I can think of, as they have relatively short paths. Still, the world is full of people who falsely claim to be part of these lineages, and people are not good at spotting this because the path is long enough for confusion to occur.

smacl

pearsquasher wrote: »

Through Darwinian processes, the useful stuff gets kept and the useless gets dumped or modified.

Darwinian process is a direct analogy for survival through competition. Cynically, the two arenas in modern martial arts seem to be the ring and the bank. Success is determined by winning prestigious events, and keeping enough students to pay the bills. I'm not sure which of these is tougher, I suspect the latter, and I'm glad that MA for me is a pastime rather than livelihood. Having winners in the club brings in more students, as does having big name celebs (lineage holders?) giving seminars.

As for evolution, MMA sees more change than most, and many traditional martial arts by definition resist change. Two sides of the same coin, if doesn't work than change it, or alternatively, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Boxing hasn't changed that drastically over the years and still seems to be doing just fine.

Doug Cartel

smacl wrote: »

Success is determined by [...] keeping enough students to pay the bills.

This is a good point. I'd add that more students also means more people going on to teach the style

Stuboyovo

OP,

I think lineage is important to a certain extent to help you understand the heritage of the art you are training in. What is way more important is the quality of your teacher, some people can be great practitioners but not be good at communicating that on to students, not just in martial arts but in anything; sport or otherwise. But this is something that you can determine by trying out different clubs and also influences the point mentioned here about keeping enough students to pay the bills.

Regarding belts/grades? I've trained in two different arts, one was very belt focussed in establishing a hierarchy of achievement for club members with different grades training separately, the other didn't put that much emphasis on it at all, all grades trained together. So i guess it depends on what focus your actual club puts on the grade.
personally I felt i learned a lot more in the latter where i could train with others with years of experience, rather than when i trained in a segregated environment.

anyway, theres my two cent on it.

Niall Keane

Lineage means different things to people it seems, here's my perspective...


In traditional Chinese martial arts, it is given importance, as it is an indicator (though not a guarantee) of "zhen chuan" or true transmission .


TCMA systems / styles tend to be quite developed (lots of training methods developing style specific "shen fa", "bu fa" etc. and have many drills that operate on several levels to ingrain certain skills in the practitioner. Hence the term "gung fu" (time and effort) is often used alongside CMA.


Although many modern "masters" hold back training methods and techniques from their students, handing out fish rather than teaching how to fish, this sharp practice is born out of inept, partially trained individuals seeking profit and to occlude their own short-commings. I think this has tainted peoples perception of the matter?


Still, that being said there are "different levels", and a good teacher guides the student appropriately, not concealing but also not overwhelming, its a fine line and something every coach / teacher / sifu must learn.


I think the abuse of "lineage" as indicated above, combined with the misunderstanding amongst the general MA populous on the difference between a teacher who is teaching and practicing an art with a lineage and one who is "part" of a lineage has left people confused, and often equating an inept teacher who practices a system with a lineage with the totally different kettle of fish, those who ARE part of a lineage.


Points worth considering;


You can practice a martial art with a lineage.


You can be part of a lineage.


You can teach a martial art with a lineage without being part of that lineage.


You can even be part of a lineage and not teach!


I believe in the west in particular many Gung Fu teachers exist who have practiced a CMA with a lineage, but they never became "inside the door" disciples let alone part of a lineage. Basically anyone can do this by turning up to public classes, attending a few seminars etc.


Now sometimes these people can be gifted enough to be able to instantly absorb and replicate what they have had limited opportunity to pick up. So one shouldn't write them off completely either. Please note this point!


However for some " self-proclaimed masters" often the gaps in the systems they have learned are filled with previous experience or parts of other systems they have learned. Fair enough but then logically what they are teaching is not the Art with the proven track record and lineage, but their own untested creation. Great if it works, but how can it be other than marketing to call it the "more established brand"?


Thats the most positive side, far more common are the totally useless relying on "lineage" (ie the achievements pf others) to sell their (far less than) half art!


It is insidious as they will normally "dictate" rather than coach, never mixing it up with students personally (often protected by belt and rank), their students will also be useless, but the charlatan coach can claim he knows all, and is passing on to them what obviously works elsewhere, they trust him too much so they never question if they are practicing what the more successful fighters from other schools of their "style" are. So failure is passed from where it belongs with an inept coach to the trusting student. Eventually of course they achieve "enlightenment" and see things for what they are, but usually then become "poisoned dragons" and equate all CMA with the experience they have had. In that regard i believe sh1t MA is the father of MMA - a natural reaction to being cheated and duped, and a deserving remedy One could argue, except the TMA that suffer are usually the genuine losing fight-orientated students to MMA, whereas for the charlatans it is business as usual, with the usual students looking for magic that overcomes serious effort!




Other traps western students fall for are "family lineages". There are two types:


One needs to remember that in certain parts of rural China extended families often live in the same village. One also needs to realise that many of these village lineages became famous during some of the bloodiest conflicts in human history. Being rural, having to defend themselves from rebels and bandits in a largely lawless environment martial arts were a daily pursuit, and it was common for lei tai matches to be held in villages (think GAA in rural Ireland) after harvest time, and more frequently in larger towns where successful fighters might end up with security contracts. Obviously if a village became well known for quality gung fu and successful security provisions martial arts in themselves became a full-time business for that village.


(Yang Lu Chan learned Tai Chi Chuan in the "Chen" village, who had and have a famous pao chi method of fighting similar to Shaolin "Red Fist". They were widely respected for this MA and many villagers provided security services.)




Now there are other "family" lineages, where MA is passed father to son...


There is a business expression, 3 generations to ruin a business, 1st generation builds it, 2nd maintains it and 3rd lives off it running it into the ground.


Again there are many "famous" family styles of Tai Chi Chuan, most haven't produced fighters in generations and it is glaringly obvious to all but the brainwashed and want-to-believers that something major is lacking in the method they practice. But its good business, a dying one, but still providing for the inept grandchildren of famous fighters.




Some suggest that genuine lineages dont matter, that noone can know if what is being practiced today resembles in anyway what was practiced in the past.


Its a good question one i had myself until in the early 2000's when i got to see a video of Cheng Tin Hung and his students training in a park in Hong Kong in 1950's. What was remarkable (to me at the time) was the similarity of technique application, conditioning methods and intensity of practice to my own and other Practical Tai Chi Chuan fighter coaches programmes. Remarkable but then again when logic is applied - obvious, all we can transmit is what we have learned and how we learned it!


Cheng Tin Hung was the sole student of a man called Qi Min Quan, Cheng became known as "The Tai Chi Bodyguard" with a reputation as a fighter successful in competitions and challenges, some of which involved dao (chinese sabre) - he carried scars for life from such encounters. Cheng was in turn Dan Docherty's teacher, himself winner of many international Chinese Boxing tournaments, the most notable being the 1980 SE Asian, where he won the Open Weight division. This involved several tournaments in HK, Taiwan and Malaysia over the year to clench the title. (It wasnt a win 3 fights to become champ. A delusion for some exists that now is the time, and all before wasn't as good, it is true that you can only fight the fights before you! However can anyone argue that today's heavy weight western boxers are on par with the Ali era? Or the Tyson era? Being involved in the pugilistic arts for a couple of decades, Im starting to see the cyclical nature of it all, how one great fighter means great competitors, how such individuals dominate rankings, leaving new blood small space to develop without regular defeat to the point of disenchantment. And when a great generation fade there is a vacuum until another great generation rises! )


Dan of course had gone on to produce students and they have in turn produced students internationally successful in sanshou, sanda, tui shou, shuai jiao, Vale Tudo, MMA etc.


The wide breath of formats we have been successful in comes from a drive inherent in the style to test ourselves, and as such is testament to its practicality, hence the name Practical Tai Chi Chuan, not dreamed up as a marketing exercise by Cheng Tin Hung but bestowed upon the style by Sports Journalists in Hongkong!


This perhaps makes skill acquisition perhaps more difficult and demanding for students where sport specialisation is avoided in favour of adaptability. For example a boxer like Ali with excellent evasion skills and timing could quite easily transfer such a fighting style over to use of weapons, where as a powerful flat-footed plodder like Marciano (the only undefeated heavy weight champ in history) would have to change his game entirely, as you cant weather sabre cuts, stabs and chops as one can punches.


(Im talking about my own style alot... As i know that style, i have no delusion that it is the only way, im sure there are many others out there with similar outlooks and experiences! )




Lineage also means an intact "complete" system. Why is this important?


On TCC, When one undergoes Ba shi (the ritual ceremony to become an inside the door disciple), one of the commandments one swears to uphold is to practice the art, not only for ourselves but to be able to pass it on to the next generation.


On a practical level, in my own system, there are, for example, 48 major sanshou (self defence) methods.


Personally I can apply them all, but I favour a few as my bread and butter. Some i personally dislike, probably I haven't practiced them enough? Or maybe my body type and how i perceive the art of fighting doesn't marry with such techniques.
Strangely some of my students have made such techniques their bread and butter.


If I wasn't required to be able to teach them, and I hadn't been examined and corrected over the years by Dan Docherty, perhaps in the arrogant self-righteousness of youth i would have probably dropped them as being impractical - they were for me! They would have been lost with me, and obviously my students would have suffered, albeit unbeknownst to themselves.


Again this is a difference between syllabus and lineage, to become part of a lineage means being authorised to have students ba shi under you, it means the head of a CMA style recognises your skill through years of evidence and personal training. It means that you are deemed capable of teaching / transmitting the ENTIRE art. So for example Dan Docherty spent 10 years training daily with Cheng Tin Hung and had fought in numerous competitions demonstrating his ability. He also worked in HK police on the vice squad so had plenty of experience on "da strez", but competition against well trained powerful martial artists is viewed as a better indication of skill under pressure.
It is a tradition in our style. (However we frown upon competition only techniques and tactics, ineffectual point scorers etc. this to our eyes separates a martial art from a sport.)


When Tai Chi Chuan became known as such (before it was Shi San Shi - The 13 tactics) after a court poet named it such after witnessing Yang Lu Chan defeat "a gathering of heros" in a challenge match (competition) in a royal palace. Yang became known as Yang "the invincible" due to remaining undefeated in numerous lei tai contests in Beijing.


We see it as part of our lineage to keep up this tradition where the art is passed down from fighter to fighter. (Yang's best student is widely credited to be Wang Lan-Ting, who taught a buddist monk called Ching Yi who trained Qi Min Quan who taught Cheng Tin Hung...


Yang had learned from Chen Changxing who had learned from Cheng Fa who learned from Wang Tsang Yeuh around 1750, beyond Wang uncertainty exists, but oral tradition and certain inside the door mantras pay tribute to an obscure Wudang Daoist hermit Chang San Feng 13th - 14th century as the founder. He didn't pull TCC out of his arse, nor despite the folklore did he dream it up assisted by Zhen Wu (Emperor of the North, God of Martial Arts), nor did he have a sudden epiphany watching a snake and crane, he was taught Daoist methods by Master Hao Long on Hua Shan and combined them with "Snake" style Shaolin he had trained at the monastery for 10 years.) As such I see no need to doubt the oral tradition, as i see no reason for a master to deceive his dedicated disciple. Though lack of written evidence in a largely illiterate population seems to equate to dis-proof to some western critics, none of whom are part of a lineage, so obviously not party to some of the inside the door aspects of the art. Self-styled experts all the same.


As one can read into the above - lineage in CMA can be a deceitful world.any try to discredit legitimate lineages for political reasons and like wise try to deceitfully invent their own, because due to the the reasoning above it is held in great esteem in CMA circles. However, It cannot be allowed to stand on its own, the current "lineage holders" have a DUTY to re-prove their art.


Im not particularly Confusion in outlook, so although I might not hold ancestors in reverence as some of the Chinese do, if I see a genuine Gung Fu art with BOTH a lineage and relevant recent achievement, i have to respect that! A once off successful fighting style could be down to genetics, or useful only to elite athletes, but something with a history of successful application inspires confidence in me.


Say you want to build a home for your family, most would agree you would be wise to go with a tried and trusted builder, someone with experience that probably cut his teeth working for someone else with experience. Maybe you can get a builder new to it all to pull off the job successfully, maybe it is that simple eh? maybe you could give it a go yourself with a copy of "Right on Site"?


But for every success story there are hundreds ripped off and let down by cowboys or finding out through costly mistakes if they DIY that it probably would have been a lot quicker and cheaper to hire someone with experience who has made all those mistakes at someone else's expense.


If you study CMA for self defence, well then why take the greater risk which could be with your own or your loved ones lives?


Its a personal decision for each person for sure!


If i wanted to learn Muay Thai and be a successful ring fighter, personally (if i had a choice), i would sign up with the gym with successful fighters and a history of producing such, a lineage of success.


My guess is their coach learned somewhere and didn't have the "dark emperor" visit him in a dream teaching him MT.


You teach what you learn so i would be surprised if such a highly successful coach hadn't been coached himself by successful fighters.


It is of course just possible that i would be missing out on being coached by the greatest MT fighter ever who just hasn't trained with notable fighters, or competed himself or produced any fighters, but on the other hand i could also be saying my time from being wasted with a self taught youtube master! Which is more likely?


Lineage if examined and proved true and currently relevant (past and present success) is simply then a mark of quality! A pre-qualifier. Doesn't mean there aren't other paths to successfully mastering a MA!


but also lets face it, it doesn't matter at all to the typical martial arts hobbiest, they are never going to have the dedication or the aim of reaching even a mediocre level where quality coaching can matter! In other words it doesn't guarantee success, it is not a shortcut. It doesn't absolve the student of their responsibility to train hard and sincerely, though many in CMA act as though they believe such.


After all the old Gung Fu saying states:
"Practice Chuan (MA), but without Gung (hard work & conditioning), then the result is only a cripple!"

Mellor

pearsquasher wrote: »

In non-sports martial arts, lineage is important if the generations that preceded you survived a skirmish/battle/war and pass on their tips to the next generation. They don't say "this will save your ass" - rather they say "I found this useful, you may too, so here you are". The vehicle that contains these tip are paired kata.

As mentioned above, that applies even more so to competition.
The problem with this is that you aren't considering linage in isolation, but rather confusing it with knowledge through years of application.

If somebody taught all the same tried and tested techniques as above, but was never actual in these battles. Is the end result any different?

Taking it to a sport example. If somebody learns what works through years of competition, consistently winning at a high level, but never had a master to master lineage. Are their techniques any less worthy to be passed on?
Are they gold medals not real. Then are their students belts not real?

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Anyone who says lineage is unimportant, just imagine if you came across someone with zero lineage. Someone who straight up told you, "I just made this up myself." You'd be a bit sceptical of their ability, wouldn't you? You'd probably put the bar fairly high for them to demonstrate that they were not full of it.

I'm not sure how affects what people are saying about lineage.
Of course you'd set the bar high. There's lot of Walter Mittys out there and I wouldn't believe it until I seen it. I don't think anybody is suggesting that if somebody claims to be a blackbelt, then that makes them a blackbelt (or whatever applies in other MAs).
But only that if they then actually demonstrate what they claim. He reach that bar you set. Showing they have the ability, does it then matter about lineage? I don't think so.

pearsquasher

Taking it to a sport example. If somebody learns what works through years of competition, consistently winning at a high level, but never had a master to master lineage. Are their techniques any less worthy to be passed on?

Not at all.... their techniques are 100% perfect - for the competition they won them in. Its fine for sports, not combat arts.

In actual application of martial arts, lethal weapons are factored into all situations, the thinking being: If you're bothering to fight it must be serious and if its serious a weapon may be produced. This doesn't happen in sports.

If not in contemporary society (it is done in Bujinkan ) this was absolutely the case for most of the generations of a martial arts lineage. These guys lived in times where weapons retention was normal, a part of your daily dress. So, "winning" was really just "surviving". Rather than test your ideas and take a chance that your died for them, you trained in a lineage where the ideas were proven to work due to the very fact they the guys teaching them breath.

In modern times, the same idea applies. You train in an art whose members testify to its effectiveness... not by winning medals but by recalling how the skills they've learned are being applied in their work. Bujinkan has a proud tradition of exactly this.

Doug Cartel

Mellor wrote: »

I'm not sure how affects what people are saying about lineage.
Of course you'd set the bar high. There's lot of Walter Mittys out there and I wouldn't believe it until I seen it. I don't think anybody is suggesting that if somebody claims to be a blackbelt, then that makes them a blackbelt (or whatever applies in other MAs).

I'm saying that lineage is important because it's extremely unusual that someone could become a good practitioner or instructor without having learned it somewhere. I'm not saying it's impossible, and I'm giving room for outsiders to prove themselves, but generally I would expect someone good to have learned off someone good.

Doug Cartel

pearsquasher wrote: »

These guys lived in times where weapons retention was normal, a part of your daily dress.

Which guys? What direct link do they have with modern styles?

pearsquasher

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Which guys? What direct link do they have with modern styles?

The members of martial arts lineages that lived when carrying weapons was normal < 1900's ish.

Link to modern styles? They are on the evolutionary path to the style and probably contributed heavily to its survival.

Doug Cartel

pearsquasher wrote: »

Link to modern styles? They are on the evolutionary path to the style and probably contributed heavily to its survival.

What is this path? Who is on it?

pearsquasher

What is the path?
- the path is the lineage.... the route the martial art has developed on. A collective body of knowledge threaded through people back in time.

Who's on it?
- The folks practicing it, the folks who have practiced it.

This is all just a model a way at looking at a lineage and seeing tis importance. It's not dogma.

The link is the physical practices of the lineage - paired kata in the Japanese case. The kata can change through each iteration.

The kata are only recipes, it's how they "taste" that matters... ie the lesson the kata teach and how they apply to non-dojo situations. Kata that survive contain lessons that "work". Kata aren't self-defence techniques to be pulled out when such-and-such attack happens - they are merely vehicles for passing on lessons and principals that can be applied.

I do appreciate though that many schools have many kata that haven't changed much and have become more like museum pieces. A Darwinian dead end... only studied for their own end.

Doug Cartel

pearsquasher wrote: »

Who's on it?
- The folks practicing it, the folks who have practiced it.

What are their names?

Doug Cartel

pearsquasher wrote: »

I do appreciate though that many schools have many kata that haven't changed much and have become more like museum pieces. A Darwinian dead end... only studied for their own end.

If the practice of the kata gets more students, who go on to teach even more, then form a Darwinian
[*] perspective, it is actually highly successful.


[*]Well actually maybe this is more the realms of Dawkins than Darwin, but I guess a debate on the finer points of evolutionary biology would be a bit off topic.

Mellor

Doug Cartel wrote: »

I'm saying that lineage is important because it's extremely unusual that someone could become a good practitioner or instructor without having learned it somewhere. I'm not saying it's impossible, and I'm giving room for outsiders to prove themselves, but generally I would expect someone good to have learned off someone good.

I wasn't suggesting he didn't learnt it somewhere.
I think we may be looking at different aspect of non-lineage. I'm not talking about guys who come out with their own stuff entirely out of their arse.

I was thinking more a long the lines of a guy who trained to a mid level with a club. And then left for what ever reason (fell out with the coach, went travelling about staying in various schools short term, opened his own school, etc) and as he learned more and more he ranked himself. Eventually giving himself a blackbelt in his own system.

Some people would be of the opinion that his blackbelt isn't real. And by extension, the blue and purple belts he gives out aren't real.
But I think that if can demonstrate the skills for that level, then its fair. If his blue and purple belts can compete with others, then they are real.

Doug Cartel

Mellor wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting he didn't learnt it somewhere.

Yeah, and I'm just pushing it to the logical extreme. The less you know about where a guy trained, the more proof you're going to need. If the guy has some verifiable lineage back to someone noteworthy, you're not going to ask as much.

Say for example you were looking to train with someone and they were a black belt under Neil Adams or Saulo Ribero - you're probably not going to make a big deal about finding out their competition record. Maybe you'd look it up out of interest, but it's not going to be as big an influence as if they had trained under someone less famous, or if they hadn't achieved a high rank.

Mellor

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Yeah, and I'm just pushing it to the logical extreme. The less you know about where a guy trained, the more proof you're going to need. If the guy has some verifiable lineage back to someone noteworthy, you're not going to ask as much.

Say for example you were looking to train with someone and they were a black belt under Neil Adams or Saulo Ribero - you're probably not going to make a big deal about finding out their competition record. Maybe you'd look it up out of interest, but it's not going to be as big an influence as if they had trained under someone less famous, or if they hadn't achieved a high rank.

Yeah, I knew where you where coming from.
I was just taking it from a real life situation that I've seen unfold here in sydney.

smacl

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Say for example you were looking to train with someone and they were a black belt under Neil Adams or Saulo Ribero - you're probably not going to make a big deal about finding out their competition record.

If the belt in and of itself isn't a reasonable measure of the ability of the holder, why bother grading? I don't know much about Adams or Ribero, bit I'm guessing that their reputation stems from their own achievements rather than those of their students.

I think that line of argument suffers from confirmation bias, which is where the whole lineage thing runs into problems. If the grading process is in any way rigorous, the outcome shouldn't be affected by who awards the grade. Saying that a black belt awarded by Neil Adams or Saulo Ribero is better than one awarded by Ronald McDonald basically says that the grading process is largely meaningless and ability of the person being examined comes down to the reputation of their coach. This in turn comes down to an act of faith rather than a qualitative test, hence my original point on lineage (and gradings) versus open competition.

Doug Cartel

In an ideal world all black-belts within a style would be equal, but we do not live in an ideal world - there is a lot of variation.

pearsquasher

Doug Cartel wrote: »

In an ideal world all black-belts within a style would be equal, but we do not live in an ideal world - there is a lot of variation.

Why because it gives you "certainty"?

I think having a variation in black belt level , reflects reality better and puts the onus on the student to judge for themselves. Creativity can't be measured!

Like I say, in Japanese (non sports) martial arts, belt is a judgement between pone person and the person they train, not a yardstick.

Andrew H

I think that this question has to be answered from different perspectives i.e.

Japanese Martial Arts their cultures demand authentication/lineage and their art is often traced back to the Samuarai

Chinese Martial Arts - their cultures demand authentication/lineage and their art is often traced back to Shaolin Monks and to Bodhidharma who first thought them Qigong exercises. Which evolved to Traditional Chinese Medicine and in turn onto Gung Fu which was used to strenghten the body and protect the monasteries from bandits.

Brazilian Jiu Jitsu came from Japanese Jiu Jitsu/Judo as thought by Jigoro Kano. His student who participated in Anything Goes Fighting/Challenge Matches - Mistuyo Maeda introduced Carlos Gracie to the principals of Japanese Jiu Jitsu. The Gracies extended their knowledge through training with their family, students and challenge matches.

Lets not forget without Mistuyo Maeda knowledge which put the Gracie family on the correct path. Gracie Jiu JItsu/Brazilian Jiu Jitsu would not exist. Without the correct path and realistic training/Vale Tudo fights MMA would not exist.

So while lineage may not be important to some people it is quite relevant in the history of real martial arts. We stand on the shoulders of those who have come before us.

But as Royce Gracie said a Black Belt only covers 2 inches of your ass the rest you have to cover yourself.

smacl

Andrew H wrote: »

So while lineage may not be important to some people it is quite relevant in the history of real martial arts

Excellent point, history is both important and often interesting. Having a direct connection to that past can add flavour to a martial art. It also preserves a syllabus or canon of knowledge across generations, which was particularly important in the earlier days where many practitioners where illiterate.

But as Royce Gracie said a Black Belt only covers 2 inches of your ass the rest you have to cover yourself.

True, maybe lineage is more about continuity than quality?

smacl

Doug Cartel wrote: »

In an ideal world all black-belts within a style would be equal, but we do not live in an ideal world - there is a lot of variation.

For sure, and the variation is much greater in some MAs than others. I'd still look at the individuals recent record before their instructor to get an idea of their ability, and even then you really only find out on the mats or in the ring.

Andrew H

smacl wrote: »

True, maybe lineage is more about continuity than quality?

A good teacher should strive to make their students better then them. This way the style evolves and continually gets better and better.

Here is a video clip of BJJ also paying homage to the past:

In relation to the question can an intermediate level student go on to form their own style. Yes, Bruce Lee is an example of this. He was halfway through the Wing Chun syllabus when he left Hong Kong. Bruce added - Western Boxing, Tae Kwan Do, the principals of Fencing and was in the process of adding Judo etc. to create Jeet Kuen Do. But he was guided by Masters of these other styles.

It can be argued that his students were the first to create Mixed Martial Arts using the concept “"Absorb what is useful, Discard what is useless, and Add that which is essential, that is your own"

gustavatwork

...hm, read all the thread. Well, from my point of view there is no one answer to all the questions. It all depends on the perspective.

Just think why do you do MA's. That will be your reply to the original question in this thread. No need to announce it and nothing to compare.

Zen65

smacl wrote: »

For any martial art, the best approach is to take a bunch of classes in a given club and see how you like it. If you like it, it is good for you, whatever anyone else's experience might be.

Yeah, agree with this.

Above all, you need to enjoy it.

As far as lineage is concerned, I apply the following test:

Suggest to your instructor one day that you want to attend a (one-day) course with some other association. If he forbids you, then leave his club. He already knows he's teaching you rubbish. If he encourages you, then he's open-minded enough to the idea that all learning is good.

Z

pearsquasher

Zen65 wrote: »

Suggest to your instructor one day that you want to attend a (one-day) course with some other association. If he forbids you, then leave his club. He already knows he's teaching you rubbish. If he encourages you, then he's open-minded enough to the idea that all learning is good.

Z

What if you go to the seminar and it is absolutely rubbish. What happens then? How do you judge the skill or your old teacher now? Surely you should have other criteria?

Peetrik

pearsquasher wrote: »

What if you go to the seminar and it is absolutely rubbish. What happens then? How do you judge the skill or your old teacher now? Surely you should have other criteria?

I think his point is that if the teacher is defensively critical of other styles then perhaps they aren't open to learning/stealing things that work from other styles... which can lead to their own style stagnating.

Damo W

Peetrik wrote: »

I think his point is that if the teacher is defensively critical of other styles then perhaps they aren't open to learning/stealing things that work from other styles... which can lead to their own style stagnating.

I think the 'rubbish' comment is a little strong, as there could be other factors; political, financial etc.

But I do agree that if an instructor 'forbids' :eek: you from going somewhere then that is a red flag!!

pearsquasher

I know what the point was, but I was making the point that insecurity may not always be the reason, actual knowledge may be.

I tell every person who walks through my door to try as much as possible of other arts to see what they like. If they do another art that actually is limiting their movement in what I'm teaching, I tell them that as well. Not ALL arts are compatible. I certainly wouldn't forbid them but if they continued both arts, they'd hit a brick wall and end up just paying my overheads and wouldn't be learning much. It happens occasionally. Its prudent of me to offer advice to students who may not know otherwise.

I was on the other end of this a few years back. A new guy revealed he was not allowed in my club according to his current other-style teacher and had to pick. I told him I thought forbidding him was extreme but that I understood his teachers point that the two styles were incompatible.....he discontinued both!
Some things just don't mix and some folks just don't get it - harsh but factual.

smacl

pearsquasher wrote: »

I tell every person who walks through my door to try as much as possible of other arts to see what they like. If they do another art that actually is limiting their movement in what I'm teaching, I tell them that as well. Not ALL arts are compatible.

Agreed, and you also have to consider that some arts work well because they have such a small syllabus (e.g. boxing). Memorising too many techniques as a possible responses to a given attack can also slow you down, as you fall foul of Hick's law. Not so much a problem say combining a striking and grappling art, but it can become a problem with two or more striking arts.

Niall Keane

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, and you also have to consider that some arts work well because they have such a small syllabus (e.g. boxing). Memorising too many techniques as a possible responses to a given attack can also slow you down, as you fall foul of Hick's law. Not so much a problem say combining a striking and grappling art, but it can become a problem with two or more striking arts.

Ah but you know very well that arts eventually seek the internal. Principle and associated ingrained body methods / mechanics (shen fa) are trained to be instinctive so the appropriate technique happens by itself.

BUT you have posed an interesting question, in bringing up "Hick's Law"

And even in the internals there are different approaches because of this in a way but all seeking the same destination.

Hsing Yi / Shen Yi Chuan have only 5 fists, (5 body methods/ ways to generate power and move), from those infinite technique arises. A lot of time is spent on their gung training and limited (orthodox) applications are shown with the expectation that the student can discern for himself or at least be guided to see their infinite possibilities. Works for some, others however mistakingly swear Hsing Yi has no wrestling stuck in a monkey see monkey do prison.

Tai Chi Chuan on the other hand has at least 8 orthodox applications (yin / yang attack and counter for die pu, shuai jiao, chin na and dim mak.) for every orthodox sanshou method 72. So 72 x 8 applications to train, many of which cover similar "situations".
Here the student is shown the many yo force them to "reduce" whats going on, as the classics say - "we practice technique / application to acquire principle, once we have principle we abandon technique".
Of course TCC also has Nei Gung systems that "programme" the styles strategies, tactics and body methods.
Hence most famous masters of the art prioritise Nei Gung, everything is there, the technique practice is just to enlighten the student into its uses, along with obvious timing, angle and distance training against opponents.

So training different styles, can work with guidance, can also destroy any possibility of getting it right where body methods contrast.

For example...
I have had lads train with me before who came from styles where stances were linear and fencing-like, if you get me. This in my opinion totally ties up their hips, making fluidity and recovery and any wrestling at all impossible. Works fine on a line but in the ring, every time EVERY TIME watch that front leg get swept and butchered with kicks.
Seemingly their styles didnt have wrestling or licks to the legs....
Im honest with them, if you want to fight get rid o that sh1t, and i explain why physically. If they want to continue the other art fine, none of my business if they take dance classes, and i would expect that they are mature enough to weigh whether it hinders them when not in dance class with white pyjamas but when in a ring with agile opponents.

smacl

Niall Keane wrote: »

I have had lads train with me before who came from styles where stances were linear and fencing-like, if you get me. This in my opinion totally ties up their hips, making fluidity and recovery and any wrestling at all impossible.

Technique aside, different styles have different tactics and tend to evolve through the sparring and/or competitive formats used. A more linear side on stance tends to work well for point scoring formats, but runs into difficulties with wrestling and at close quarters. Fine if you land your first strike cleanly, but not so good when things inevitably don't work out that way. One of the tactics we use in tai chi is to move off the opponents centre line, diagonally forward to their outside, as a mechanism to foil just such a straight line approach and close to our preferred fighting distance. Having come to practical tai chi / wudang from wado karate background, I had a hell of a job moving between these approaches.

Lineage also influences how a given line of instructors interpret a style. e.g. we were taught, and teach, that techniques are there to execute specific tactics that have a very simple goal, such as getting in close on an opponent on their outside to maximise grappling and striking opportunities while minimising their number of possible counters. This is classic tai chi, which anyone from CTH / Dan Docherty lineage would teach from day one, but from what I've seen, very few other tai chi lineages deal with practical fighting tactics from day one.

IMHO, tai chi chuan, properly taught, survives Hick's law by having a large number of techniques which all follow one of a small number basic types of movement in order execute a given tactic, many of which are designed to get a positional advantage prior to delivering a strike. While this isn't in any way unique to practical tai chi, that it is emphasised so strongly from day one in a sparring context is a notable attribute of our lineage.

pearsquasher

Regarding Hicks Law - "the time it takes for a person to make a decision as a result of the possible choices". I don't think this applies to effective martial arts or any physical pursuit done well, to be honest.

I can say that in the Bujinkan you will see 100's of different techniques in a year. I counted the number of kata (paired) contained in the art and its about 450 half being weapons based. The uninitiated will think "how am i supposed to remember all that?!".

The answer is that you don't remember the techniques, your body remembers the essential sum-total of all the techniques which is roughly about a dozen or so major principles of movement involving angles, timing and distance. This take time though.

In my class we practice one kata a class and then explore the principals that kata teach - often coming up with techniques I've a) never done before and b) I've never even seen before. I haven't memorized all of the kata, I have notes from Japan. They are only recipes.

I often ask students to resist too and some of the kata actual contain "any attack" rather than a pre-prescribed one.

The result, after a few years, is to be able to make up techniques on the fly that perfectly suit your combat tactics in that moment - for example "prevent injury and escape". That probably the only conscious decision you're making - the rest is trained intuitive response which lies outside of Hicks Law, in its classical form.

Peetrik

pearsquasher wrote: »

In my class we practice one kata a class and then explore the principals that kata teach - often coming up with techniques I've a) never done before and b) I've never even seen before.

By techniques do you mean combinations?

Niall Keane

Niall Keane:
"Ah but you know very well that arts eventually seek the internal. Principle and associated ingrained body methods / mechanics (shen fa) are trained to be instinctive so the appropriate technique happens by itself."

"we practice technique / application to acquire principle, once we have principle we abandon technique".

smacl:
"IMHO, tai chi chuan, properly taught, survives Hick's law by having a large number of techniques which all follow one of a small number basic types of movement in order execute a given tactic, many of which are designed to get a positional advantage prior to delivering a strike."

pearsquasher:
"The answer is that you don't remember the techniques, your body remembers the essential sum-total of all the techniques which is roughly about a dozen or so major principles of movement involving angles, timing and distance. "


We are in agreement so. ;-)

Imperial_Ldn

In almost all martial arts there is no quantifiable quality measure. It's very difficult to ascertain the quality of the training being delivered. Thus things like belts, competitions, lineage come into play. As most of us know, the value of black belt, or any other belt, has become completely devalued in the last 20 years. Such that, everyone has a black belt now (or equivalent sash etc.) and most people have higher black belts. Unfortunately, you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to scratch the service and investigate and find out that these people, almost without fail, were awarded these belts not out of merit for technique or performance, but for money.

The Asian Martial arts, particularly the Japanese Ryu Ju-jitsu martial arts are the biggest proponents of this behaviour. Some western guy, goes to japan, makes friends with a japanese guy who runs a club, promises aleigance and grading fees, and takes his blackbelt home to go and teach 'authentic, real jiujitsu' to the white fools here.

In 20 years of martial arts training i have NEVER met a guy from these systems who wasn't an awful proponent of it, with a terribly low skill level and very average coaching skills.

pearsquasher

Techniques = "waza" in Japanese = combinations of movements = strikes, throws, locks, weapons, kicks - all combined in one flow that adapts to the attackers own movement where that could be multiple attacks combined with countering ("resistance").

"Kata" are pre-subscribed techniques in Japanese MA - known as "forms" in Chinese.

1970's Karate propagated this idea that kata are solo punching-the-air performance-related drills.... but in Japanese Ryuha systems from mainland Japan, kata are always paired.

Imperial_Ldn

pearsquasher wrote: »

1970's Karate propagated this idea that kata are solo punching-the-air performance-related drills.... but in Japanese Ryuha systems from mainland Japan, kata are always paired.

in my experience, paired kata is as useless as solo kata for development of skill (other than the inherent skill of performing kata).

Stuboyovo

Imperial_Ldn wrote: »

in my experience, paired kata is as useless as solo kata for development of skill (other than the inherent skill of performing kata).

Why? it cant be always free form sparring from day one, especially when teaching how to use locks etc.

Imperial_Ldn

Stuboyovo wrote: »

Why? it cant be always free form sparring from day one, especially when teaching how to use locks etc.

sigh. are you new to martial arts? or new to thinking outside your own base form?

why are you presenting a false dichotomy of either kata or free form sparring and omitting the wealth of middle ground between them.

if you want to teach someone to perform a martial art technique / waza you do the following:

1. show the person the techinque. let them spend a few minutes at most understanding the mechanical movement of it (this is also a good time to instil the philosophical principle too). kick the bag, put the lock on a friend, continue until your are doing it correctly.
2. simulated environment - drill the technique, at low intensity practice moving around trying to kick your opponent, try to apply the lock with low resistance.
3. increase intensity and resistance, vary the simulated environment
4. apply in free sparing .