Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rulesets, Styles, Semantics, & Dragons

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Rulesets, Styles, Semantics, & Dragons

    I was about to add a post on an existing thread and thought that the comment would be better served on its own thread.

    We all say things like "(MMA, SanDa, Muaythai, etc.) is a rule set not a style" Even though most of us would agree that Muaythai, at least, is clearly a style as well. I'd like to get this cleared up once and for all. Rule sets generate styles. Boxing is a set of rules, and it produces a family of closely related "styles" which represent the evolved understanding of what it takes to win under those rules. I am starting to get tired of people saying things like "Muaythai is a style of Thai MA dating back hundred, if not thousands of years." Bullshit. Muaythai is a rule set that dates back to the 1920's, and the (evolving) style that dominates under those rules is commonly referred to as "Muaythai". Does anyone seriously think that the jab, cross, hook and upper cut originated 2,000 years ago in Thailand?

    Same goes for MMA. MMA is a rule set, that is true, but there is also a clearly recognizable, but still evolving style that has proven itself dominant under these rules. That style bears the same relationship to RVT that MT bears to Muay Boran and Lerdrit. Just as with Boxing and MT, the style is named for the rule set under which it evolved. Whatever is dominating boxing at the moment is called "Boxing". Same for the other sports. Can we stop pretending that the CS don't have styles associated with them, just because the styles share the same name as the sports they evolved in?

    I look forward to the day I can say "SanDa's side kick is different than Shotokan's" without someone trying to remind me that SanDa is a sport and not a style. Everyone knows what is being said, and the semantics need to be dispensed with somehow.
    Last edited by Matt Phillips; 5/27/2009 11:12am, .
    Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


    KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

    In De Janerio, in blackest night,
    Luta Livre flees the fight,
    Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
    Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!

    #2
    deleted.
    I am a hypocrite.
    Last edited by WhiteShark; 5/27/2009 11:16am, .

    Comment


      #3
      I came for the dragons, and I all get is a grouchy shark?
      FOR SHAME!
      Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.

      Gandhi

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by WhiteShark View Post
        Fuck you. Gain deeper understanding then come back to this discussion.
        Y'know, as I was writing this I thought to myself "I bet WS is the first one on here, and that he doesn't take the time to explain what he's objecting to."

        Why do you make such a big deal about this? I am trying to clear up a problem in terminology. I am not expressing an opinion about the arts.
        Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


        KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

        In De Janerio, in blackest night,
        Luta Livre flees the fight,
        Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
        Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by sochin101 View Post
          I came for the dragons, and I all get is a grouchy shark?
          FOR SHAME!
          I figured Machida would come up eventually.
          Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


          KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

          In De Janerio, in blackest night,
          Luta Livre flees the fight,
          Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
          Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!

          Comment


            #6
            I haven't been posting much because I recently realized you can't explain anything about really understanding martial arts to anyone that doesn't already know it. There is no "correct terminology" because the perceptions of what happens in the milliseconds that you have to make decisions in a fight is not part of your conscious thought. So you end up with explanations like Chi and Flow and Power and Internal and all that crap that isn't really accurate but gives people who don't already know something to cling to. Then they can pretend that they do know by repeating the failed attempts at explaining the unconscious to the conscious.

            Comment


              #7
              Are you guys both posting in the same thread?

              Comment


                #8
                They're all rulesets. People tailor their training regiments to what works best within that set of rules.

                There's no rule saying you must train Muay Thai, Boxing, Wrestling, and BJJ in order to compete in MMA. There's no rule saying you must train in a style of Kung Fu to compete in Sanda. Overtime people have observed what works best within the rulesets. There's nothing stopping me from spending the next five years training in monkey kung fu then entering a pankration tournament.

                I can't punch anyone in a Judo comp, so I spend no time on the heavy bag if I'm training for a tournament. Same reason you don't spend any time in an MMA gym practicing gun disarms.

                Call it a styles if you want, though. Who really cares when it comes right down to it. There's only so many ways you can do a sidekick

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by War Wheel View Post
                  Y'know, as I was writing this I thought to myself "I bet WS is the first one on here, and that he doesn't take the time to explain what he's objecting to."

                  Why do you make such a big deal about this? I am trying to clear up a problem in terminology. I am not expressing an opinion about the arts.
                  No, you are engaging in the semantics you want to stamp out.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by WhiteShark View Post
                    I haven't been posting much because I recently realized you can't explain anything about really understanding martial arts to anyone that doesn't already know it. There is no "correct terminology" because the perceptions of what happens in the milliseconds that you have to make decisions in a fight is not part of your conscious thought. So you end up with explanations like Chi and Flow and Power and Internal and all that crap that isn't really accurate but gives people who don't already know something to cling to. Then they can pretend that they do know by repeating the failed attempts at explaining the unconscious to the conscious.
                    A newbie thread today reminded me of why we post and lurk. It's philosophy, which is to say, attempting to write--and thereby force yourself to concretely understand--something at the edge of your conscious understanding. Things that I know only subconsciously get pushed into my conscious mind slowly through this process (which is why it is often said that teaching is a great way to better learn one's own game).

                    Yes, it easily devolves into semantics or chi-talk. But I think that when someone reads a description of a martial-training phenomena that they don't consciously know, it's not that they don't get it. Sure, they won't get it if they've never encountered the unconscious feeling, or the phenomena. But if they've encountered it without verbalizing or noticing it, then reading someone's description of that phenomena can kick the reader's comprehension from an amorphous, poorly defined, unconscious state, into a beautiful, oh-wow-that's-the-pattern-I've-been-staring-at, conscious reality.
                    What a disgrace it is for a man to grow old without ever seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable. -Xenophon's Socrates

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by It is Fake View Post
                      No, you are engaging in the semantics you want to stamp out.
                      Now that's really interesting. How so? I'm not trying to "stamp out" the semantics, I'm trying to make some sematic room for a distinction that gets in the way of people expressing what they mean clearly. It is a pain in the ass to have to say "They side kick commonly used by fighters competing under modern SanDa rules is ...". That makes about as much sense as saying "The lead hand strike (Jab) commonly used by fighters competing under modern Boxing rules is ...".

                      If your position is that these styles don't exist, I wonder why you don't object to terms like "Muaythai round kick" when any old round kick is legal in MT.
                      Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


                      KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

                      In De Janerio, in blackest night,
                      Luta Livre flees the fight,
                      Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
                      Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Pretend for a second that BJJ has been around for 1000 years.
                        In that time Garcia's descendants have specialized their lineage so that they always use open guard and prefer NOT to be on top. They call this "Octopus style jutsu".
                        At the same time Mat Hughes and Randy Couture have a baby and the baby starts a style of submission wrestling. in the same thousand years that baby's grand students specialize in smashing people into the cage and controlling them flat on their backs until they get frustrated and call their style "Rhino gotard fu".

                        Both these schools compete in a new "mixed" martial style called "Ultimatico Fightsu Tournamnet" Then they realize that they need to know a little bit of each others style to be competetive against each other.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by War Wheel
                          Everyone knows what is being said, and the semantics need to be dispensed with somehow.
                          Well, IMO your use meant "for go" or as I said "stamp out" the semantic distinctions.

                          In other words, you want a way it can be described without all of the semantically based arguments.

                          I'm saying your definition alone, as CBF pointed out, is going to create the same problem.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by WS
                            Pretend for a second.....They call this "Octopus style jutsu".
                            But...there is an octopus guard....


                            I'm just kidding. Please don't bathtub beer drink me to death.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by It is Fake View Post
                              Well, IMO your use meant "forgo" or as I said "stamp out" the semantic distinctions.

                              In other words, you want a way it can be described without all of the semantically based arguments.

                              I'm saying your definition alone, as CBF pointed out, is going to create the same problem.
                              OK, maybe the way I stated it leads to more of the same (or maybe not). The goal of eliminating the semantic static is a good one IMO. A poster ought to be able to refer to a technique (or variant) that appears uniquely in , or is commonly associated with, competition under certain rules without sparking a senseless derail about rule sets and styles.

                              By way of illustration (not a suggestion!) one could use "Boxing" to refer to the rule set, and "[Boxing]" to refer to the family of styles which evolved under said rules. Thus "Boxing has rounds lasting either 2 or 3 minutes, depending on who's competing" would be correct, as would "[Boxing] does not have a spinning backfist", but not "Boxing has less than 10 individual punches" which would be incorrect as one could punch (legally) in any number ways that use only the scoring portion of the glove without breaking the rules.

                              In Philosophy there is an analogous distinction between Use and Mention: "Octopus" has 7 letters, and Octopus has 8 arms.

                              Forgive the digression into Analytic Philosophy. I'd rather get super technical once, and hopefully resolve this once and for all, than keep the status quo.
                              Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


                              KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

                              In De Janerio, in blackest night,
                              Luta Livre flees the fight,
                              Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
                              Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X