From: stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark)
Subject: Re: Comparing styles (the art of style comparison)
Summary: Comparing styles well is an art unto itself
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  8 SEP 92 09:24:11    


bburgar@cix.compulink.co.uk (Bill Burgar) writes...
> 
>Although I believe that it is a nonsense to compare arts with a view
>to deciding which is "best", these discussions do tend to yield a huge
>amount of information about the various arts. Therefore we all learn a
>great deal which is the main reason (at least for me) that we are
>here. Take for instance the boxing vs kicking thread, I've learned much
>about boxing that I would not have learned elsewhere.

Absolutely, this is the primary purpose I have when *I* do stylistic
comparisons, and I frequently do them and enjoy them very much.  I want to see 
where each approach potentially goes right and where it potentially goes 
wrong, in general, fully understanding that I'll certainly never know enough 
about even a small handful or martial arts to be able to fully appreciate all 
of their subtleties.    But I do find a need to be realistic and explicit 
about my criteria in making a comparison, and not just assume that something is 
useful by my criteria just because a lot of people believe in it.  I suppose
taking an initially cynical view and waiting to be shown my errors might
seem similar sometimes to unfair criticism, but the similarity is purely
coincidental.  

I think comparison of styles is an art form in itself.  It is certainly 
understandable that pride and experience would lead to some degree of bias in 
each person's view, and I find that not only tolerable but up to a point, 
desirable.  I want someone to vigorously point out their style's strong
points when I point out my observation of its weaknesses, and show me
where I might have misinterpreted something due to lack of experience.
But I won't take it on faith alone, I need to see it and preferably 
experience it, where practical and reasonably safe.

The fine points come mostly from first hand observation 
and experience, rather than debate, in most cases.

Someone in another thread (I think it was Dakin) recently admonished me
for comparing things in different categories, I suppose in defending
some notion of superiority in various areas of asian martial arts practice 
from my perhaps too vigorous support of western boxing.  I didn't mean to 
inspire defensiveness, but I do agree that it is generally more useful, or 
at least *easier* to compare things that are meaningfully similar,
like sportsmen with sportsmen, amateurs with amateurs, pros with pros, and 
street fighters with street fighters, and so on.  The difficulty I sometimes
have here is that very few martial artists own up to being the equivalent
of pro fighters, and people frequently seem to go overboard and assume
that interstyle contest neccessarily is too dangerous to be held.  The top 
tournament fighters, quite frankly, can't even compete for the most part in 
the few cases they've tried, and the masters of the respective arts mostly 
refuse to engage in such contests.  I find the few exceptions to this rule 
most welcome and interesting.  The founders and masters of Kyokushinkai and 
its various offshoots are noteworthy in this respect.  Their contests lead to 
very useful tactical and strategic comparisons at times, more so I've found
than most other organizations.

>>reading this forum and seeing the sharing that goes on.  I have always
>>admired the participants for respecting each other and each other's arts.
>>It saddens me when someone says:  "Art X is useless, 'cause I can just
>>kick and not let the guy get within range."  It especially saddens me
>>when someone tries to say "Art X isn't really a martial art, but my art
>>is a *real* martial art."

Tolerate more of the 'hydrostatic paradox of argument,' and it is possible
to glean a lot even from heated debate.

						very kind regards,

						todd