-
T. Mancuso ShihFu
One
of the most confusing and often divisive aspects of martial arts
is the issue of styles. Here are a few thoughts on the history
and meaning of the subject.
Styles'
names change throughout history. The original T’ai Chi went
only by the name "Rou Gong" (Soft Work). Probably in
Wen County, where it was developed by the Chen Family, it might
have gone by the name Chen Chuan. It was certainly a Jia Chuan
(family fist). Some styles are known simply by their place of
origin. Others by individual’s names. Joe Lewis’ side
kick might be referred to as a "Lewis side kick". But
people do need to call things by some kind of names. Hence the
idea of naming styles. Dan Gable’s famous wrestling team
would have been pronounced Gable-Pai in ancient China. Is this
so strange ? Life abounds with styles and schools. Impressionist
painting, Expressionist, Cubist, Abstract. Sometimes the names
are meaningful. Sometimes an encumbrance. When are they meaningful
? When you’re good.
Styles
are packages. This style may emphasize explosive self defense,
that one sport. Many of these decisions come from historical and
market pressures. Or simple misunderstandings. It’s perfectly
o.k. for a beginner to assume that martial arts is about self
defense and only self defense. A student should know better. A
teacher shouldn’t even wonder. Modern society abounds with
packaging. As the old adage notes: You sell the sizzle, not the
steak. Styles have a lot of sizzle. Remember the ninjitsu craze?
It would be hard to estimate how many students gained a true interest
in ninjitsu during that period. Some, I’m sure. Nowadays
one half of all women who call our studio ask for Women’s
Kick Boxing. A class would sell. For a while. It would be smart
packaging.
A
style is basically the recognition of where you came from
. An alma mater if you will. The responsibility of your own achievement
is always yours whether you’re identified with a lineage
of respectable teachers or not. But the honorable individual shares
the glory, realizing full well that no one is self-made.
Physics
graduates from Oxford and Berkeley have one thing in common, they
are all Ph.D’s. There may have differed in research focus
at each college, course requirements, experiential formats; but
one basic supposition is that over the course of completing their
training everything pretty much equaled out. Despite the details
of their curricula they are — at bottom — trained physicists
able to do creative and important work. But until they've done
their creative work what makes these graduates into physicists
is the recognition of their peers, the acceptance within their
discipline. Once they have made real contributions their colleges
of origin becomes far less important.
At
the beginning mechanics or movement, gaining power, mastering
speed and balance should make the issue of style almost insignificant.
True, one should at least acquire the correct basic skills. Then
as the sweat rolls and the long hours are tallied, the issue of
mastery begins to rear its head.
Mastery
of what?
No
one assembled a personal style from nothing. Each player is simply
borrowing from the research and efforts of what has come before.
Some people not only re-invent the wheel but are convinced that
they hold the patent. They say love is blind, but self-love can
be more impaired than that.
Back to ARCHIVES