Repairing styles....

**Shuma-Gorath** · Posted On: 1/14/2006 7:12pm

Originally Posted by Cullion

I contend that I pointed out from the beginning that aside from odd occasional trick that may be of interest, stuff like that is OK as long as you know you're only doing it out of curiosity and don't expect to get nearly as much bang for your buck as 'mainstream' training. You keep labouring this point about how 'but Aikido isn't as good as the main core of MMA-feeder arts as if it was something the rest of us didn't know, and then repeatedly attacking this strawman of 'but aikido doesn't work very well in combat sports'. That's why I call it a strawman, because you're attacking a point I never actually made.

For the last time, I'm attacking your premise that deriving things from arts that were designed dead from their inception has any usefulness at all. Utility is directly related to effectiveness in combat sports as a nice corollary.

I'm not talking about an isolated case.

I ammended my post, but your series of analogies are already stretched beyond any reasonable connection regardless.

**Cullion** · Posted On: 1/14/2006 7:23pm

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

For the last time, I'm attacking your premise that deriving things from arts that were designed dead from their inception has any usefulness at all. Utility is directly related to effectiveness in combat sports as a nice corollary.

The reason is that many dead arts are derived from 'live' arts, so you might, just might, find something handy in their repetoire which you can breathe useful life into by integrating it into your sparring if you feel that you're at some kind of plateau in the live training you currently engage in.

My main point was that there's nothing wrong with researching stuff you know to be 'low percentage' as long as you recognise that's what you're engaged in.

I ammended my post, but your series of analogies are already stretched beyond any reasonable connection regardless.

You're just upset about me pointing out that fortran thing after you declared programming languages an awesome analogy, aren't you ?

It's not like I think Aikido is more effective than BJJ.

**Shuma-Gorath** · Posted On: 1/14/2006 7:48pm

I suppose I can't stop you if you want to spend your life panning a river for fool's gold. I'm just not going to concede that there should be martial pretense attached to it.

**Cullion** · Posted On: 1/14/2006 8:01pm

I'm not panning for fools gold, I'm learning standup at a place that has produced good San Shou competitors. I'm just pointing out that people who want to study something which they know is basically a historical research project, as long as they recognise it for what it is, aren't deluding themselves.

**unpossible** · Posted On: 1/14/2006 8:04pm

Fortran.NET is a great example of the jet-engine-in-a-horse-carriage principle in motion.

If Paul Graham HAD to, say, rewrite FORTRAN from the ground up while maintaining its essential fortran-ness, he probably could, and could probably still make better products using it than 99% of hackers out there. But it would be pointless, and certainly FORTRAN isn't what would make him successful. He'd kick ass because he's used tons of languages at a very high level, and is dipping into FORTRAN out of nostalgia (or masochism).

GOD PLEASE DELIVER ME FROM MY NERD ANALOGIES! But I have nothing else to use, heh. Programming is all I'm *really* good at. Everything else, I'm an "enthusiast."

Like Mitch Hedberg said, "Some comedians say 'I can't do a three or two-minute bit.' If you can't get a laugh in the first minute, you probably aren't a comedian. You're probably a 'humorist'."

**Shuma-Gorath** · Posted On: 1/14/2006 8:04pm

Originally Posted by Cullion

I'm just pointing out that people who want to study something which they know is basically a historical research project, as long as they recognise it for what it is, aren't deluding themselves.

Historical research can be done with a book. You don't have to waste your time learning the actual art if you have proper grounding in good delivery systems.

**Cullion** · Posted On: 1/14/2006 8:14pm

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Historial research can be done with a book. You don't have to waste your time learning the actual art if you have proper grounding in good delivery systems.

But that's not true of motor skills. What if you saw an aikidoka do something and thought 'Aikido doesn't make much sense most of the time, but you know there might be a use for that when...' Would you learn it from a book, or would you go and ask the aikido guy about that thing you saw him do ?

**Shuma-Gorath** · Posted On: 1/14/2006 8:26pm

Originally Posted by Cullion

But that's not true of motor skills.

I said: "if you have proper grounding in good delivery systems"

What if you saw an aikidoka do something and thought 'Aikido doesn't make much sense most of the time, but you know there might be a use for that when...' Would you learn it from a book, or would you go and ask the aikido guy about that thing you saw him do ?

If you have grounding in live training and don't understand exactly how a technique works when observing it, then the two actions would be equivalent. However, you will be able to tell if the move was at all functional just by seeing it in action.

Then again, BJJers are known for coming up with their own functional gimmicks rather than digging them out of martial art junkyards, so I suppose this whole scenario is pointless.

**Cullion** · Posted On: 1/14/2006 8:30pm

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I said: "if you have proper grounding in good delivery systems"

If you have grounding in live training and don't understand how a technique works when observing it, then the two actions would be equivalent. Furthermore, you will be able to tell if the move was any good at all just by seeing it in action.

You think you can learn techniques from a book more efficiently than by learning from a practitioner once you reach a certain degree of skill in the style you already practice ?

That doesn't sound right.

**Shuma-Gorath** · Posted On: 1/14/2006 8:37pm

Originally Posted by Cullion

You think you can learn techniques from a book more efficiently than by learning from a practitioner once you reach a certain degree of skill in the style you already practice ?

That doesn't sound right.

I learned the pendulum sweep off a video on the Internet and used it in class with a 100% success rate today after taking some of my own time to drill it last week. It was never shown to me in class. People who train in alive systems do this all the time.

I am not arguing against instruction. I am arguing against wasting your time hunting for bits of gold in a pile of ****.