Dealing with change as a Martial Art system

[Mark A]

Nice Reply

Hey Adam,
That was a very elquent reply. And something that I could not have said any better


Mark

[Shaolinfist]

Hey Adam,
That was a very elquent reply. And something that I could not have said any better


Mark

Could not agree more, so please forgive me for not answering personally Sifu Mc Ilwrath!

[stonecrusher69]

Dear Sifu Mc Ilwrath,

I've been really enjoying this discussion. Thanks for starting it.

From my perspective when viewing a complete martial art one has to keep in mind the difference between techniques and skills. Techniques are the actual movements which have form, and skill is the ability to apply techniques correctly with enough gong (roughly force) for it to be effective. IMO a complete art will have both the techniques for any combat situation as well as training that develops the necessary skill/force to apply techniques effectively for those combat situations.

I know this differentiation may seem obvious and trite, but I feel it's relevant in answering your most recent question. In that instance, the person training a complete art either doesn't know the appropriate techniques and/or how to apply them (even though the art contains them), or he doesn't have the necessary skills or force to apply the techniques he knows (even though the art contains the methods to train the skills and force) against that specific opponent.

So in the situation you described, you have a martial artist who got beat because his techniques, skills, or both were not adequate to the combat situation he was in. He did not lose because his art doesn't have the techniques or skills. This is fairly commonplace. I don't think you will find anyone here who will argue that an exponent of a complete martial art will always beat an exponent of an incomplete art.

For example, if I were to fight Brock Lesnar, I wouldn't be excited about my chances of winning even though I practice what I consider a complete art. I know very effective techniques to handle any move he would likely throw at me, but I highly doubt my current skill/force level is enough to overcome his strength and athleticism, professional fighting training, and even more importantly large amounts of experience. This does not mean the my art is incomplete, it means that I am not skillful enough in the art to win that fight.

All the best,

I agree skill or gong is more important then techniques. one's forse is what's imprortant. Technique alone is not enough. when combined one will be very powerful.

[Adam B]

Mark Sisook and Phil,

Thanks for the positive response.

Sending my best across the pond.


Dear Sifu Mc Ilwrath,

I agree skill or gong is more important then techniques. one's forse is what's imprortant. Technique alone is not enough. when combined one will be very powerful.

I don't disagree with this, but it wasn't the main point of my post. My main point is that whether or not a specific practitioner is able to win a specific fight really has no bearing on whether or not the art being practiced is complete. The information on techniques vs. skills (both of which are necessary for an art to be complete) was shared to provide a fleshed out definition of a complete art and supportive information as to possible reasons why an exponent of a complete art would lose to an exponent of an incomplete art.

All the best,

[Shaolinfist]

On a slightly different note, I just watched this documentary about Sun Tzu's Art of War which was referenced in another thread today and made me think about this discussion. The documentary is all about how Sun Tzu's principles of winning a war are still as relevant today as they were almost 2500 years ago! Even with guns, cannons, warships and fighter bombers, the principles of war are still the same and the ancient wisdom of a sage way back then still applies today and is taught in university's and other institutions to generals, company executives, sportsmen and various other individuals around the world!

Best regards,
Phil