View Poll Results: If an art has any sub-optimal components is that art bullshido?
- 97. You may not vote on this poll
Teachers should warn students of the lack of depth in the specific area.
2/12/2006 5:41pm, #51Originally Posted by Kidspatula
I've been taught basic strikes in BJJ, even though they're not allowed in competition. Muay thai also includes takedowns (trips), right?
Those components are suboptimal compared to styles which specialize in striking and takedowns.
2/12/2006 5:45pm, #52Originally Posted by Mjelva
2/12/2006 5:58pm, #53
damn, Kid you are on the warpath. I think the point of the thread was to talk about lack of completeness in MA. Hence the poll. Should you Muay Thai instructor (if you only did Muay Thai) tell you about grappling?
As for recommending Wing Chun... I think you went too far.
2/12/2006 6:00pm, #54Originally Posted by Kidspatula
2/12/2006 6:06pm, #55Originally Posted by KageKaze
2/12/2006 6:10pm, #56Originally Posted by Kidspatula
Oh. I been steering clear of the JFS threads. I made my opinion clear early, and it didn't change.
I guess I mis-interrupted the point of the thread.
2/12/2006 6:10pm, #57
You should still apologize for recommending Wing Chun.
2/12/2006 6:13pm, #58Originally Posted by KageKaze
I'm still shocked.
2/12/2006 8:15pm, #59
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
I feel that, as long as teachers warn students of the lack of depth a system has in a certain range of fighting, then there is nothing wrong. What usually constitutes bullshido is a misleading and un-provable claim, and as long as a teacher is perfectly honest with the students there is no bullshido.
This is still somewhat subjective. For example, if my Judo instructor told me that Judo was a great way to learn striking, that would probably be bullshido. However, if he told me that Judo was a great way to learn striking in that I could use my knowledge of throws and groundwork to place myself in a much more advantageous position (the mount), thereby allowing me to pummel an opponent virtually unchecked, then it's arguable that this is not bullshido. I still wouldn't be able to stand up and hope to fight a good boxer, but if I were able to use a takedown and get into a mount position, I would certainly have a great advantage as far as striking is concerned. This situation is still subjective. Now, if my teacher told me all the crap that I previously listed about an advantageous position and then warned me that I am not going to be able to use Judo to stand up and out-strike a boxer, then that would be a pretty legitimate claim.
I believe that some level of extrapolation is perfectly fine as long the instructor's claims can be proven effective beyond a reasonable doubt. The more honest and open instructors are with their students, the less likely it is that they are teaching bullshido.
ADDED: I just read the entire thread, and there are some pretty good thoughts. It seems that whether to define an aspect of a martial art as sub-optimal is completely dependant upon the context/situation in which the martial art is being used. Earlier, I was thinking along the lines of a UFC/Pride style event in which two unarmed opponents of similar weight go at it with the objective being a KO or submission.
Putting a martial art into the context of varying situations will give you different sets of sub-optimal areas. For example, in Judo competition, Judo is not suboptimal in striking because there is no striking. The same applies for other things like boxing; in a boxing match, boxing does not have sub-optimal groundfighting because there is none in a boxing match. The more unrestricted the situation is, the more clear the sub-optimal components of the MA will become.
Last edited by CaptainHowdy; 2/12/2006 9:13pm at .
2/13/2006 2:22pm, #60
"Now, my students, I don't really know how to effectively deal with this scenario but I've been taught this series of techniques which probably don't actually work. That's what we're going to learn today!"
Yeah right...Ranked #9 internationally at 118lbs by WIKBA http://www.womenkickboxing.com/wikba...rch%202009.htm