I understand that there are a number of individuals here who are ex-TKD or who left a system/art that was insufficient for self-defense needs. They came up short in one regard or another. This also carries over to observing a system being ineffective in competition (such as that SCARS precursor I was reading about on here sometime recently).

On the other hand, I also see criticism of a style/system/art based on theoretical concepts rather than direct experience. The problem I see with this is that accounts and experiences can be from non-expert perspectives that don't accurately account for the art/system as a whole, but rather the subjective nature of the place where the art was studied. For example, the Krav I learned and studied at a school temporarily in Seattle was taught by a young, very casual instructor who didn't care much about physical fitness. On the other hand, the Krav I learn now is from an instructor who berates us to "squeeze their neck harder so they know what a damn choke FEELS like! You're not doing them favors by being nice!"

If you've criticized an art/system, or you feel you would be able to, on what basis would you classify an art/system as "ineffective" or "useless?" How much do you feel that personally studying the art plays a role in being able to effectively and substantially criticize it?

Steve, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're boiling it back down to the individual vs style debate again.

Edit:

Whoops, my bad. Must read more carefully. Osiris is t3h corr3ct.

Steve, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're boiling it back down to the individual vs style debate again.

Edit:

Whoops, my bad. Must read more carefully. Osiris is t3h corr3ct.

Osiris has a good point, as he usually does. But it's not necessarily about that.

What I'm talking about is criticizing a style/art/system without having a solid basis on doing so; not having any experience in it, for example, or not having enough proficiency in a similar or applicable method that could critique the style/art/system in question.

For example, I've seen some bashing of Krav Maga on this site, or I've been given crap because I study it and recommend it to others. I get the impression that it is viewed as a "not good" art, but except for an analysis of gun disarming techniques by Kungfoolss, I've never seen any substantiation why. I don't have a problem with criticism of systems and such. It's one thing to criticize, it's another to mouth off ignorantly and bash something without adequate knowledge.

So that's what I'm getting at. At what point would one consider themselves capable enough to judge another style, especially if they've never practiced it?

Steve,

What's the difference between Krav Maga and JKD? :P

My main curiousity about KM and JKD is whether they are actual "styles"? Or a collection of "techniques"?

Thanks.

Interesting question.

Trouble is it's much more fun to mouth off generalisations that you've heard than it is to actually go and try something new or do some basic research. Plus by wittily putting down another style it also makes whatever art you study to be so much kick-assier.

But I digress. To answer the question: -

"So that's what I'm getting at. At what point would one consider themselves capable enough to judge another style, especially if they've never practiced it?"

I would consider myself capable of judging another style if I fought with some (ok lets be pedantic and say 3) practitioners of said art who were all my size and had about the same number of hours training. I reckon then I could probably start to comment on that style with personal examples.

there are no bad styles only bad training methods

there are no bad styles only bad training methods


I disagree, as a complete art is usually better than an incomplete art.

so what is a complete art then?

A complete art has Striking, Grappling, and ground fighting, jointlocks and throwing. Basically, your well prepared for a variety of situations.

Many systems were created to be effictive aginst practioners of either the same system or a specific system ( case of Wing Chun that was, according to some, created to defeat the "long arm" systems of the time).

Few systems were created for "complete combat".

That is why cross training was and is, so vital for a Martial Artist.

so what if this complete art has really bad training methods?

I would rather train in a "specialised" system, with the righgt training methods, than a "complete" one with static, dead and obsolete training methods.
I would have more of a chance to survive that way.

You said.

there are no bad styles only bad training methods

So TKD is equal to BJJ if they train the same?

Training methods are important. But, if the style has glaring holes, then training methods won't make that much difference. It not what you know that could get you killed, but what you don't know, as the old adegage goes. I cannot believe this HAD to be explained.

A complete art has Striking, Grappling

Not a single art fits that description (unless you count Judo atemi :icon_roll ).


My main curiousity about KM and JKD is whether they are actual "styles"? Or a collection of "techniques"?

Because both systems are based on principles, not techniques, they are more effective than the stylistic arts :911flag:

Tai chi, koshinken karate(old school), old muay thai and does MMA count?

...So that's what I'm getting at. At what point would one consider themselves capable enough to judge another style, especially if they've never practiced it?

I took Krav Maga for a year(got up to Level III), and it blows. I feel feel more confident in my fighting abilities by taking Judo, which is a friggin' SPORT, than I ever did in Krav.

Ask HAPKO3, he's another former Krav student. It seems all well and good while you're taking it, but then when you rub Darren Levine goo off of your eyes and look around, you realize that all those plucks and groin kicks are going to do is make you look like a complete ass, WHILE you're getting a sufficient beat down placed upon your skull.