It's the practitioner not the art

Question

Do you agree with that quote?

Answer 1

It's the "technique" not the practitioner.  Without the art there is no "technique" and without the "technique" there is no practitioner.....  

Who ever started all this "it's the practitioner" c**p way back when was a total idiot.

Technique, technique, technique ..... nothing else.  That "it's the man not the art" is totally thrown out by way of pure logic.  Individualism has no place at all in the martial arts.  The art is taught the exact same way to countless students no matter what art it is.  Without the art there is no "man" to practice such a art in the first place.  Technique works it's just that plain and simple it can't be deviated from at all so a man and his individualism mean nothing.  Saying that the practitioner ( man ) is the center of all is like saying that man was created before the earth was created.  Science ( technique ) in the first place is, still that it is, of any art because a man can "deviate" from technique and lose sight of that which matters most, but even so the technique without him is still the truest form of "technique".  

Which came first the chicken or the egg?  In other words look deeper than just saying "what you think sounds right" look deep enough to understand any art for what it is.  Does the practitioner even have to use his brain? NO ... he simply reacts to his attacker because of the technique he has learned through many years of practice.  He has no need to think, but only to be reactive hence "self-defense".  The practitioner ( man ) means nothing .... The technique is still the techinque with or without him.

Individualism is why many instructors from coast to coast are now having major problems with their students ... I've seen such questions in Yahoo Answers as: "Why are my students losing interest?" and the simple answer is that today's students have bought and/or are being taught that "It's the practitioner not the art that matters most".  It used to be the other way around 20 years ago .... there was no room for individualism.  That's when the martial arts in this country were at their peak when students understood the concept of "technique and nothing else".  Like with all things though someone always passes around disinformation like "It's the man not the art" ....... how sad.

Edit: retroactivism, Anti-Thesis, judomofo, wootpwnage_com, Karate Kid, Sensei Scandal and bunminjitsu all make valid points was well.

And too right about Kata Sensei Scandal I'm glad some one else can see truth for what it is.

Edit: One more thing is it the man or the U.S.M.C.?  The United States Marine Corps says, "It's the Marine Corps not the man" as a matter of fact young men and women refer to themselves as a third party such as , "Sir, this recruit is ready sir!!"  During their training.......  there is no room for individualism and it's worked for the Marines through out it's 200 + year history with out complaint or waiver.  So why then allow the "It's the practitioner, not the art" statements to even enter the mind set of any martial arts practitoner in any dojo period?  There is no way out of this comparison at all.  The Marine corps trains young men and wemon for battle and so do the martial arts.  The only difference hopefully is the death of one's enemy, attacker, adversary, etc.  The Marines train young kids for combat repetitively and the Martial arts trains young kids for combat repetitively .... there is very little difference ......... hence The "technique, not the man"  Like I said in my statements above to believe other wise is very foolish of any sensei.  I think this is also the reason Tae Known Do students never complain and love their art form.  Most Tae Know Do academies are ran with this same kind of Marine Corps attitude towards, both, learning and teaching "It's the technique, not the individual" and I've never heard not one complaint in Yahoo Anwers from Tae Kwon Do students like I've heard complaints from Karate Students and other students of others arts that are not Tae Know Do .... Not a big Tae Know Do fan myself, but Tae Know Do instructors know the truth when it comes to teaching at lleast so I'll give them major kudos for that...... "It's the technique, not the student/practitioner"

Answer 2

That quote is exactly right. I get sick of the questions and statements on here saying that some martial arts are better than others. NOT TRUE. It will always come down to the practitioner. In a match between tkd and mma, almost everybody will say that mma wins, but what if the mma guy cant get a hold of the tkd user, now its whole new ball game. There isnt a single martial art better than another. The user of the art is what matters. He has to use his moves in a practical manner to control the fight. If he doesn't, then it won't matter what he is using, he will  lose.

Answer 3

Nope. It's both.

Answer 4

it depends  

Answer 5

I think you said a lot in a very short phrase. I have been saying the same thing since..well for a long while. Show me a white belt in any MA and I'll show you a Black Belt in another MA that can take him. Same time; I've seen white belts in one program embarrass black belts from another.

Well said.

Star

Answer 6

NO! I do not believe this to be so.

I agree partly with what Judomofo says. It is the training method.

Or rather, it is the teacher's ability to teach it properly. By properly, I mean knowing all the theories that are integral. It is also the student's responsibility to learn everything about the art.

As far as teaching someone kata and another, techniques with application... I would say -

Teach someone kata and the applications to the kata.

Most seem to forget or not know at all that all of the movements you can think of, that are used in MMA are in kata. Every single one!!!

If you execute a technique, that technique is from a form or kata, no ifs ands or buts.

So yeah, if you learn the art correctly you will be proficient, no matter if you are a jock or a nerd.

William P - RIGHT!!! And what is technique? KATA!!!

And if you learn the movement without learning how to apply it, you might as well learn nothing!

Answer 7

it's the warrior not the weapon or the fight.

totally agree.

Answer 8

No. Show me one aikido guy that can beat an amateur boxer. It doesn't happen.

Some 'arts' are just that. They have business calling themselves self defence systems.

Answer 9

Yes true

Answer 10

YES, to a certain extent.

Fights are going to be won and lost on factors like, experience, athletic ability, speed, timing, balance, power, reaction, training, confidence and even some luck.

Those factors will have a much greater impact on the outcome of a fight then the style they trained in or the color of their belt.  

James

EDIT FOR MMABUSHI:

I don't understand your logic at all.  You can teach 10 different people the exact same technique.  They can perform a synchronous kata and march to the beat of the same drum, but this means nothing if they actually fight.

In a fight, they are not "marching together".  You mentioned that Judomofo made good points, but his points are contrary to your statements.  He said that "good athletes" generally make better fighters.  

Once the fight starts, it is the individual, not the technique.  

One style is not better than the other because its "techniques" are better, it's the practitioner applying the techniques that makes the outcome.

Answer 11

Just like any tool.  

Answer 12

Yep. But it also depends a lot on the art. Each art has its strengths and weaknesses. Some have more strengths than others, some have more weaknesses than others.

Answer 13

It's not the art, it's how the art is practiced. In general, any art that spars live with resisting opponents is superior.

Answer 14

the man makes the art the art does not make the man.but what kind of man ?perfect practice makes the perfect warrior and it has been said enough times on here what perfect practice is .

what goes in one end comes out the other end as technique and no amount of sweat or desire will cure or correct bullshido technique.

your 1st answer says "just like any tool" but what if the instructions for using the tool are faulty incomeplete or just wrong or the tool itself is broken to suit a particular agenda or philosophy .the tool wont do the job it was intended to do.

Answer 15

Yes I do but I prefer to say the individual person.

I've always believed martial arts regardless of style to be a tool to be used,its how you personally can adapt to and use that tool to your advantage ,more so in self defence and on the street where there are no rules etc and no quarter is expected or given in pure survival.

Good question and you'll receive many conflicting points of view I'm sure.

Best wishes :)***

Answer 16

No.

It's the training method, not the name of the style.

You can take an amazing natural athlete, teach him nothing but kata and forms, have him learn to do all kinds of acrobatic techniques, but he wouldn't be a better fighter. You throw him in the ring, or he gets in a street fight he has no practical knowledge, and his athletic ability is all he has to rely on, which may do no good because of crappy, unrealistic or improper training.

Now you take someone who maybe isn't naturally athletic, teach him the techniques, have him spar it repeatedly against people of various skill level, put him in tournaments, and matches where he squares off against skilled practioners, he hones and refines his technique and learns what works for him and what doesn't. When he meets the kata athlete in the streets he would easily beat him.

While the practioner does have something to do with it.

You could take two people, identical height, weight, same athletic body types and backgrounds. And begin training them, one of them will end up being better than the other, by sheer natural talent, or by aggressiveness, or a killer instinct, there will be some difference, so to some degree it is the practioner. There are guys like BJ Penn who with half of the training, and half of the time spent working on techniques can best people trained in the same art, or similar who have been training longer, and are more experienced.

So to some degree it is both the method of training, and the practioner. The name of the style is just a name. All have something effective to offer if trained properly, and all can be worthless if trained improperly.