what criteria, assuming that arriving at such criteria is possible, should be considered before a person could say that a martial art is effective? Below, I put together profiles of potential teachers, limiting their characteristics to historical claim and competition participation. In this post, please go with me on a very loose defenition of competition, consisting of aggressive action against a resistant opponent of considerable skill in a place where the general public can view.
Teacher A
-does not compete
-points to historical evidence of effeciveness
in this model, would lineage be necessary to substantiate or reinforce the claim? does lack of a "display of skill" reduce the merit of his claims?
Teacher B
-competes publicly, and presumably wins
-does not rely on the history of the art
in this model, is the teachers lineage worth anything? Does competition legitimate the possible claims about the effectiveness of his art?
Teacher C
-competes publicly, and presumably wins
-points to the historical evidence of effectiveness
is this model necessarily better than the other two?
are there examples of a "teacher D" that does neither and is still legitimate?