Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote:
No it would not. Especially when some else using the same style comes along and wins all 10 contests.
The point is that no amount of contests will ever prove the martial effectiveness of a technique. Techniques, like hammers, are tools and in and of themselves neither effective or not. The Sensei cannot prove the martial effectiveness of a technique, only display his own effectiveness as a martial artist employing the technique.
|
There is a middle ground here.
There are two main variables: the System and the Student. Teaching methodology comes into play, of course, but let's just conveniently put that under System for now.
When I was in the Army back in 1990, the self-defense curriculum including something we called "The Betsy:" using a rock and a big overhead swing to crack your opponent on the helmet. I understand that, today, TRADOC has removed The Betsey from the core curriculum and is even advocating some kind of BJJ-ish system? [I presume Kevin can clarify any details.]
An individual who cannot develop a martial attitude or cannot develop martial skills, either through lack of effort or lack of ability ("LOE" or "LOA," if memory serves), will not succeed in just about any System. But, if your entire System was "The Betsy" and you didn't have a rock nearby, the average practitioner is screwed.
It takes a bit of a leap for the Student to not be trapped by the forms of any System. For instance, even though The Betsy is no longer taught explicitly in the Army's system, if there's a rock nearby, an open-minded, improvising soldier will still grab it and whack you on your kevlar with it.
But, just because every Army soldier is now wearing the back beret, it doesn't make them a Ranger. Not every Ranger makes a good Green Beret, and vice versa---since certainly not every Green Beret fits so well in the regular infantry. Why does the US have separate Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, ..., and within them different levels of differentiation?
The Systems themselves are forms as much as are the individual techniques of the System. And, historically, is it not true that whenever a System appears, a Counter-System will eventually be developed? And isn't it the end-state of most martial teachings not to be trapped by form?
Budo is formless. Systems are formed expressions created from budo and pointing to budo. The techniques of Systems are the same. We can create form on a whim and adapt our favorite System---call that evolution if you want---but budo itself is beyond evolution.
Finally, it's easy, from a fractal perspective, for the branch to believe it is the trunk, calling what is below it as the roots and what is above it leaves and branches---and to some extent that makes sense. But, if you find yourself rooted in Form rather than the Formless (budo), you're lost.