If it depends on the practitioner and has nothing to do with the martial arts...?

I

Immortal

New member
Joined
May 12, 2008
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Points
1
... then why do we still see people asking which martial arts is better, and actually have people answering by giving suggestions to such and such martial arts?

If it depends on the practitioner, then it doesn't matter whichever martial arts get picked up, isn't it?
In this case, a beginner can simply pick a martial arts at random and can still be the best.
 
Ignorance and bias.... That's why the questions get asked and why ppl are so adamant about why they champion one method over another.

However, it isn't just a simple matter of the practitioner picking a style. It has been said that mastery is a result of three factors: Proper instruction, diligent practice, and talent. (Talent being the least important of the three.)

As a beginner.... I could pick any style I want. However, if the teacher has not progressed far enough him/herself or doesn't know how to teach, I cannot progress because I may not get "proper instruction". I may learn how the teacher expresses the art, but if he has not really mastered the art, then it may be like me learning to paint from a kid who only knows how to finger paint.

If I am not diligent in my practice of the art, it won't matter how good a teacher I have. I won't learn what he offers (and he will probably quit wasting time trying to really teach me since my own attitude is wrong and my sincerity to learning isn't there). After all, approaching martial arts like it's Tuesday night at bowling or weekend at the basketball court, isn't going to make me the the best, is it?

And perhaps I just don't have as much "talent" for learning a martial art. Perhaps I'm not naturally coordinated in learning physical movement. Doesn't mean I can become good and master the art. But I may not ever "be the best".

Besides.... Why does it always have to come down to a "being the best"? Why can't I just work towards being "my best"?

Be well.
 
It has something to do with the martial art. Think of it like an equation.

Percentage of Effort a person puts in, multiplied by the quality of a Martial art, on a 1 to 5 rating.

So, if someone puts in 90% effort, and is practicing a middle of the road martial art, a 3...
90X3 = 270 (end Product after years of study)

If someone puts about 50% effort, and is practicing the best martial art in the world, a 5...
50X5 = 250

As you see, the first martial artist, practicing an okay martial art and working hard at it will defeat the second one. (I like breaking things into simple equations) There are good and bad martial arts, but effort matters much more than martial art. The fact is, an accurate equation would also multiply other factors into it. . . Health, Age, Instructor's qualifications, location, etc...
 
I don't totally agree with that statement as most martial arts have some kind of deficiency in some way. Judo while effective lacks punching and kicking and there are not as many finishing type holds in it as jujitsu. Karate while encompassing striking, punching, and kicking lacks grappling and some ground fighting aspects. TKD while being strong in regards to kicking lacks the same as well as is a little weaker in the punching and striking aspects as opposed to karate and the list can go on and on I think.

The eighty percent of that statement that I do agree with is because it is a combination of how well that practitioner understands and has mastered his art and can make adjustments for those deficiencies as well as maybe what they may have done and learned in the way of adding to their skill, knowledge and ability to round out that skill, knowledge and ability. At the same time one has to start somewhere and it is very important to build a strong foundation in that art that you first start with I think no matter what that art is. Doing so will give you the best foundation from which to build from as well as add other skills to better round out your ability to fight and defend yourself then. At the same time if that person has developed their skill and ability to a higher level in their primary or first art it can be argued they are more apt to meet with success which is what this question is all about really.

I know from my many years of fighting that if a person has a weakness due to a deficiency in their art like what I mention and I can capitalize on that then they are more easily beaten. At the same time if they are poor in their primary art then they have little or no chance at all. A strong foundation, being knowledgeable and skilled in their primary art can make this all more difficult for me to meet with any success and more difficult to accomplish which is why people say it is the practitioner and his skill, knowledge, and ability that counts and not so much the art I think.
 
Back
Top