Differences

[Matt Easton]

Is there anybody doing #3 school who knows one source inside-out?
If no, then I would ask- how can we know if #3 is a true hypothesis?

Matt

[Shawn Cathcart]

Read my post a little more carefully. Especially the bottom where I say its important to have a good understanding of both source material and sparring experience. Heh perhaps my nerdy MSCE comparison wasn't very clear. I completely agree that the manuals are our only source of information on this topic, and they are very rich. I've not shot myself in the foot, I merely put forth the opinion that people do too much studying of the manual without applying that study objectively to their sparring and drills as well. Basically people being book smart on the manuals, and not experience smart in the techniques put forth by those manuals. I think for the most part ARMA members strive for a good mix of both, but that is not the case in other groups. I've just noticed people go on and on about techniques in manuals, and can tell just from their explanations, that they haven't tried them out in drills at "with intent" speeds, and hence don't get a true true grasp of them. I apologize if that came out snarky, its late here, heh. But just please read my entire post more clearly next time.

[Tony_Indurante]

Matt,

Can anyone say they know any source inside-out? Can we say that by studying just one master's work you can gain a better understanding of medieval or renaissance combat than by studying them all?

None of the master's wrote down everything they know, so how can we say that we are learning their "system"?...we don't even know what their complete system was.

I'm not supporting a mish-mash, or creating your own system, but with the lack of a living master, or a work showing every possible nuance, how else can we go about it?

I'm also not going to say one way or the other is better or worse, mostly because I don't think it matters much. I just don't like being told that I'm making up "my own system" (not that this has happened in this discussion- I'm just making a point) because I don't study just one master, but use them all to verify and validate concepts.

Tony

[Casper Bradak]

I agree whole heartedly with that. Most of the individuals that I've met and trained with study from all available materials, and our goal has been to gain those skills as closely as we can get to how they were originally intended.
I think it's impossible to learn a masters complete system without the master present, though I fully support those who try.
But, all those whom I train with deplore the thought that we're making up our own art, or a modern art, just because we lack one master to learn a complete system from.
I think it's a good thing to have those who specialize in one manual (which I think is more fitting to say than one master) because those who don't will naturally know less in detail about certain individual manuals. It should be an excellent and cohesive relationship between the two philosophies.