How is...Is it effective?

[LowwerWay]

Before posting a thread asking how effective a particular style or sifu's teaching is, can we please prequalify the questions by laying down the criteria of the person asking for what effectiveness means?

Does it mean:

documented fighting success?

point tournament success?

forms tournament success?

financial success?

a good reputation?

popularity?

What does it mean to the person asking? Otherwise, why ask?

[Matt Stone]

Before posting a thread asking how effective a particular style or sifu's teaching is, can we please prequalify the questions by laying down the criteria of the person asking for what effectiveness means?

Why not approach reviews of "effectiveness" by breaking them down?

Yiliquan, as taught by the Yiliquan Association, Sifu Phillip Starr (founder and headmaster of Yiliquan)

documented fighting success?: No professional fights of great note; former senior student competed in local kickboxing competitions and did well (though I don't recall how well).

point tournament success?: Competition in local open tournaments as well as AAU Chinese Martial Arts Division regional and national tournaments earned many 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place wins; routinely beat competitors from West Coast circuit (who were heard to exclaim frequently "but I usually win back home" or words to that effect).

forms tournament success?: As above, frequent wins. However, stylistic differences have caused difficulties when competing against other schools in similar competition divisions (e.g. taijiquan, xingyiquan, baguazhang).

financial success?: Meh. We have a school in Omaha, NE, and we have a school/club in Tacoma, WA. We've never been a big group, we've never had fancy schools. But we've been around since 1982 and we're still growing.

a good reputation?: I would think so. We've been paid many compliments by well-known CMA representatives/luminaries, as well as having burned some bridges through the years. To my knoweldge, and in my experience, we've never been insulted, publicly derided, or otherwise held in low esteem.

popularity?: Define "popular?" This might also go hand in hand with "financially successful."

Enjoy.

[Guizzy]

Before posting a thread asking how effective a particular style or sifu's teaching is, can we please prequalify the questions by laying down the criteria of the person asking for what effectiveness means?

Does it mean:

documented fighting success?

point tournament success?

forms tournament success?

financial success?

a good reputation?

popularity?

What does it mean to the person asking? Otherwise, why ask?

To me, it's about ability to kick ass and ability to teach how to kick ass.

This is measured by the sifu himself, along with his students (especially his higher level students). Are the sifu and his higher level students significantly better fighters than the beginners? Do they have their asses handed to them by anyone with experience in other martial arts? Do they spar and when they spar, is their training obvious?

Of course, a good reputation will also factor in quite a bit. Obviously, you have to know whose opinion matter, though; as I'm not sure Ashida Kim's opinion on who is a good sifu would matter to me.

If the teacher has documented fighting success, that's all good, but to be realistic, this is pretty rare for kung fu. There is little documentation left about tournaments that took place in asia over 20 years ago.

[Fa Jing]

To me, it's about ability to kick ass and ability to teach how to kick ass.

This is measured by the sifu himself, along with his students (especially his higher level students). Are the sifu and his higher level students significantly better fighters than the beginners? Do they have their asses handed to them by anyone with experience in other martial arts? Do they spar and when they spar, is their training obvious?

Of course, a good reputation will also factor in quite a bit. Obviously, you have to know whose opinion matter, though; as I'm not sure Ashida Kim's opinion on who is a good sifu would matter to me.

If the teacher has documented fighting success, that's all good, but to be realistic, this is pretty rare for kung fu. There is little documentation left about tournaments that took place in asia over 20 years ago.

nicely put, but to me if he can kick my ass hes good lol. I did research on the art i chose then went around town looking for teachers. I knew about the art before i went in so i sortof had an idea of what to except and look for in qualified instructors. If it isnt make believe the guy punching leaves his hand out and doesnt move while you make 3 moves to get into position, if its reality 10 seconds of chaos preparing you by hitting and getting hit its pretty good IMO.

[Petter]

Before posting a thread asking how effective a particular style or sifu's teaching is, can we please prequalify the questions by laying down the criteria of the person asking for what effectiveness means?

It means "the property of being useful in achieving a goal", more or less. What goal?---If you make your question so damn vague, how can you expect a more specific answer? If we were to assume any generic goal for a martial art, then I suppose we should have to settle on martial success -- id est, fighting ability. (You may also have noticed that Bullshido.net has a certain slant in favour of this.) Your metrics should then try to measure it.

Does it mean:

documented fighting success?

I fail to see how this could not be considered a strong argument in favour of effectiveness of a martial art.

point tournament success?

I suppose this could sort of measure a bit of a person's fighting ability. Maybe. To some degree. If the rules are good, and the judges are good and don't just award points for tagging. And... I forget where I was going with this.

forms tournament success?

This doesn't make any sense to me; forms are naturally insular. A person is "better" at style X forms if they are closer to the ideals of style X. What criteria could you possibly use to make form competitions fair between styles?

But then I never saw any point in form competitions, anyway. Less than point fighting. Way less than point fighting.

financial success?

So when someone asks you "Do you think that Escrima is an effective martial art?", do you think it's likely they mean "Do you think that offering Escrima training is a high-percentage business venture?", or do you think that if they meant this, they'd specify it?

a good reputation?

A reputation for what? And amongst whom?

popularity?

Because popular equals good. Ten billion flies can't be wrong -- eat ****!

What does it mean to the person asking? Otherwise, why ask?

Well, that makes sense at least, but if the person just asks "Is it effective?" then it's the person asking who's fucking up by being too vague, not the person answering. If it's no more specific, then from the context (a martial art, and Bullshido.net culture) the person answering has to infer the most relevant metric.