Semantics

[Matt Phillips]

I think we should try to stick to the semantic argument traps without getting into issues which are merely ignorant stupidity which might require other tactics.

The meat and potatoes of a lot of this ignorance is often some semantic game, glitch or short circuit. In Zendo's example the person is using MT+BJJ as his definition for a term that is not defined like that. The term the TapouT dude is looking for is something like "Ruas Vale Tudo"

The same guy might also say something like "Bas Rutten is a legend of MMA" in the same conversation, even though Bas' style is MT+CaCC, and the overwhelming majority of his fights did not allow any MT techniques beyond the style's kicks.

Using multiple (even incompatible) definitions for the same term in a conversation is great way to kick up a lot of unnecessary dust.

[Matt Phillips]

-Edit to above: It is also a very common tactic to use a fairly neutral definition for "MMA" like "striking + grappling" and then turn around and insist that someone else's Hung gar+Dumog background disqualified them from claiming to train "MMA".

[Tom Kagan]

Using multiple (even incompatible) definitions for the same term in a conversation is great way to kick up a lot of unnecessary dust.

I suppose, if you weren't trying to continue a semantic argument on the semantics of semantic arguments, I might agree with you more strongly.

Some semantics are worth arguing, but the TapouT weenies are a bad example. We don't need to sort the trivial from the absurd when simply identifying where are the important distinctions will be hard enough.

[Tom Kagan]

Back on subject...

Example: You need to study all ranges of unarmed combat.

No, you don't. Whether you need to study all ranges is determined by what are your personal predilections and focus of training.

Example: Boxing is a complete style.

Yes, it is, if your predilections and focus allow you to view "complete" in a different light.

[Tom Kagan]

Back on subject...

Example: You need to study all ranges of unarmed combat.

No, you don't. Whether you need to study all ranges is determined by what are your personal predilections and focus of training.

Example: Boxing is a complete style.

Yes, it is, if your predilections and focus allow you to view "complete" in a different light.

[Matt Phillips]

I get that the second example turns on one's definition of "complete" (or "complete martial art"), but I don't see the Semantic angle on the first one. It seems more like an OMGEVRYONEKNOWZ...

As far as TapoutT semantics goes, I would say that there is a very real and very semantic error in the ever popular "UFC=MMA" at the core of their world view.

as far as me arguing meta-semantics :) all I want to say about it is that I'd define the scope of the thread to be any arguments that turn on the definitions of the terms used.

Somethings just look that way, for example arguments that turn of similarities of pronounciation...

Boston has the best Mix Martial Artists because it has so manyMicks.

[Tom Kagan]

... but I don't see the Semantic angle on the first one.

It is dependant on your definition of a Martial Art's purpose. If you flip the first example over and make it related to the second, the semantic angle might become clearer: "Boxing is terrible because it has only punching."

[jzx]

Example: You need to study all ranges of unarmed combat.

No, you don't. Whether you need to study all ranges is determined by what are your personal predilections and focus of training.

Example: Boxing is a complete style.

Yes, it is, if your predilections and focus allow you to view "complete" in a different light.

I might be beating a dead horse, but it seems to me that a style is complete when some turn of events doesn't lead directly to defeat (whatever the terms of defeat might be). As an example in MMA sport, if your opponent catches you with a double leg do you sprawl and back out, do you go to ground and try for a sub, etc., or do you just hope that it never comes to that and get eaten alive. There are plenty of MMA fighters who do great with just one style, they just have effective contingencies. I think that's the most honest way we can read the word "complete."

[Tom Kagan]

I might be beating a dead horse, but it seems to me that a style is complete when some turn of events doesn't lead directly to defeat (whatever the terms of defeat might be). As an example in MMA sport, if your opponent catches you with a double leg do you sprawl and back out, do you go to ground and try for a sub, etc., or do you just hope that it never comes to that and get eaten alive. There are plenty of MMA fighters who do great with just one style, they just have effective contingencies. I think that's the most honest way we can read the word "complete."

Hey Matt, is it a little clearer now? Jzx fell directly into the "five foci" semantic trap.

Jzx,

Your response is entirely dependant on your belief that the study of martial arts (Malogy? Maology? Heh.) must contain aspects of a specific focus I mentioned previously. I don't think the intent of this thread is to define the word 'complete' as it pertains to martial arts. I'm going to treat your response as an unintentional red herring and not bother to respond directly to what you wrote. Still, I'll try to be a little less obtuse by addressing what I see as the crux.

Not everyone studying a martial art is concerned with victory or defeat. Some have a different focus, and, therefore, a different definition for 'complete' than upon what your response is contingent. For example, look up the root word of 'competition': "Come together to seek god" - a focus most peculiar to to many. Zen and The Art of Archery is a decent book which further touches upon this focus in relation to a martial art.

[jzx]

Hey Matt, is it a little clearer now? Jzx fell directly into the "five foci" semantic trap.

Jzx,

Your response is entirely dependant on your belief that the study of martial arts (Malogy? Maology? Heh.) must contain aspects of a specific focus I mentioned previously. I don't think the intent of this thread is to define the word 'complete' as it pertains to martial arts. I'm going to treat your response as an unintentional red herring and not bother to respond directly to what you wrote. Still, I'll try to be a little less obtuse by addressing what I see as the crux.

Not everyone studying a martial art is concerned with victory or defeat.

Ah, I see what you mean, thank you.

Sorry if that was off topic, heheh.