3 ms·

With which part do you disagree strongly? If it is that the description of the first focus omits mention of other important factors such as de-escalation and us

With which part do you disagree strongly? If it is that the description of the first focus omits mention of other important factors such as de-escalation and use of minimal force then I would agree that those should be included. The rest of your comment, e.g. "...many people study sports and get a completely biased understanding of fighting..." suggests that you are in agreement with the general thesis of the article, i.e. different focuses bias the selection of tactics and techniques taught and training for one focus may be of limited use for another.

Retric 10y ago
I agree that there is a range of goals. But mostly just treating things as separate silos. They all have different focuses and cover different bases. Where a 6'6" guy who takes boxing may feel it meets his minimal needs for fighting in the modern world, a 5'2" female may enjoy the sport but reasonably feel the need for something more effective on the side for self defense. There is also things like learning to fall which have utility in a wider context or some like archery also cover hunting etc. There is also a range of risks, as boxing is far more likely to result in head trauma than tai chi. Judo risks joint injury etc. Basically, rather than silos I feel a list of outcomes and a 0 - 5 scale much better maps to reality. PS: Further, people tend to use whatever they have in whatever context they are put in. Fall off a horse and know judo?
- gvurrdon 10y ago
  If I understand correctly what you mean then it is a valid point, but I think the writer of that article is discussing something different. For example, consider the art of foo-jitsu, which is mostly based around kicks and so suits tall people and is good for sport, or bar-fu, which involves shorter range open-hand striking and has some good ground fighting techniques, making it good for self-defence or for shorter people, according to the sort of classification I think you mean. Based on this description you would pick the system depending on your goal. The focus article proposes that either of these arts may be used for any focus, depending on the attitude and goals of the teacher. So one could go to a foo-jitsu school that uses the same principles of art and base syllabus as the typical sporting classes found in the style but is oriented towards defence (its students never get involved in tournaments, for example), or a bar-fu class where the instructor has turned it into ground wrestling sport and concentrates on winning trophies. So, it is therefore possible to pick a class based on the characteristics of the system and find that the focus of the class is not quite what one wanted. The article states that there may be more than one focus but there should be one or two primary ones. Of course, I may have misunderstood exactly what you mean; apologies if so.

Retric 10y ago

I agree that there is a range of goals. But mostly just treating things as separate silos. They all have different focuses and cover different bases. Where a 6'6" guy who takes boxing may feel it meets his minimal needs for fighting in the modern world, a 5'2" female may enjoy the sport but reasonably feel the need for something more effective on the side for self defense. There is also things like learning to fall which have utility in a wider context or some like archery also cover hunting etc. There is also a range of risks, as boxing is far more likely to result in head trauma than tai chi. Judo risks joint injury etc. Basically, rather than silos I feel a list of outcomes and a 0 - 5 scale much better maps to reality. PS: Further, people tend to use whatever they have in whatever context they are put in. Fall off a horse and know judo?

gvurrdon 10y ago
If I understand correctly what you mean then it is a valid point, but I think the writer of that article is discussing something different. For example, consider the art of foo-jitsu, which is mostly based around kicks and so suits tall people and is good for sport, or bar-fu, which involves shorter range open-hand striking and has some good ground fighting techniques, making it good for self-defence or for shorter people, according to the sort of classification I think you mean. Based on this description you would pick the system depending on your goal. The focus article proposes that either of these arts may be used for any focus, depending on the attitude and goals of the teacher. So one could go to a foo-jitsu school that uses the same principles of art and base syllabus as the typical sporting classes found in the style but is oriented towards defence (its students never get involved in tournaments, for example), or a bar-fu class where the instructor has turned it into ground wrestling sport and concentrates on winning trophies. So, it is therefore possible to pick a class based on the characteristics of the system and find that the focus of the class is not quite what one wanted. The article states that there may be more than one focus but there should be one or two primary ones. Of course, I may have misunderstood exactly what you mean; apologies if so.