# STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE



## DaveB (Jun 23, 2017)

Hello all, I posted a couple of times before a long absence so I won't be offended if no one remembers me (or cares).

I thought I would try and flog some life into one of my pet deceased equines...

Can you describe your karate (or other art) style *WITHOUT* reference to your training methods/class stducture etc?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 23, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Hello all, I posted a couple of times before a long absence so I won't be offended if no one remembers me (or cares).
> 
> I thought I would try and flog some life into one of my pet deceased equines...
> 
> Can you describe your karate (or other art) style *WITHOUT* reference to your training methods/class stducture etc?


No, I do not believe that I can.

Why?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 23, 2017)

sure ,  its a  Fujian Chinese art learned by an Okinawan who studied in China and who taught in Wakiyama Japan. his son taught in Okinawa so its considered karate rather than kung fu.

now how else would we describe a style without disscussing training methods.  methodology is the primary difference between karate styles.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 23, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> sure ,  its a  Fujian Chinese art learned by an Okinawan who studied in China and who taught in Wakiyama Japan. his son taught in Okinawa so its considered karate rather than kung fu.
> 
> now how else would we describe a style without disscussing training methods.  methodology is the primary difference between karate styles.



But is it though?

I think that training methodology has become the focus because of an absence of something else far more fundamental to the nature of a fighting art. I will explain my view but I'd like to see if there are any other descriptions.  Hoshin, your laying out of geographical and peadagogic lineage was unexpected and an interesting way to view a style from.

I've never been in two schools that trained in the same way yet never found two that were different.

All martial arts train air techniques. They all do 2-person drills of some sort and they all incorporate some degree of fitness. Everything else is just details and preferences. 

No style has a monopoly on training methods and every martial artist I've met has co-opted something from other art's or style's training regimes. 

None of this is meant to imply that training is unimportant. On the contrary I feel it is the main determining factor in any fight/match. I just don't think it makes the style.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 23, 2017)

DaveB said:


> But is it though?
> 
> I think that training methodology has become the focus because of an absence of something else far more fundamental to the nature of a fighting art. I will explain my view but I'd like to see if there are any other descriptions.  Hoshin, your laying out of geographical and peadagogic lineage was unexpected and an interesting way to view a style from.
> 
> ...


I disagree.  I believe that in the end, there is often more similarity than difference.  But how one gets there, the training methodology, is what is different, and that is what defines the style.

I can essentially guarantee you that certain training methods used in my system will not be seen outside of three related arts, of which my system is one, that all came from the same root system.

That does not mean that every training drill we do is unique.  But there are some essential and foundational training methods that we use that are extremely important to our methodology, that will not be found outside of our very small family of systems: Tibetan White Crane, Hop Gar, and Lama Pai.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2017)

Oh lord.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 23, 2017)

I would wager though that 90% of even your small family style training is at least in principle the same as other styles training. 

Once I crystallized this realisation of what (I think) is supposed to differentiate fighting styles it became harder and harder for me to understand this view that training is what makes the art.
We don't go to the ballet to watch stretching or judge a javelin thrower on his morning run. If I balance on some wooden pillars does that make me Shaolin? Am I doing taichi if I do my Kata in slow motion or judo if my sparring is free and continuous and at full power minus dangerous stuff?

I don't think it does. 

That being said I'd love to know more about the system specific exercises you mentioned? If they aren't secret, can you explain what they do and why they are so key?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 23, 2017)

This is easy. Attitude, Logic, Basics, and fitness.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 23, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I would wager though that 90% of even your small family style training is at least in principle the same as other styles training.
> 
> Once I crystallized this realisation of what (I think) is supposed to differentiate fighting styles it became harder and harder for me to understand this view that training is what makes the art.
> We don't go to the ballet to watch stretching or judge a javelin thrower on his morning run. If I balance on some wooden pillars does that make me Shaolin? Am I doing taichi if I do my Kata in slow motion or judo if my sparring is free and continuous and at full power minus dangerous stuff?
> ...


I believe that the principles upon which our system is built are indeed shared by many other systems.  But the way in which we train to develop those principles as a driving power for our technique, and just how it manifests, is unique to our method.

That is why I say that in the end, there is probably a whole lot of similarity, but how we train and how we get there, is different, and that defines a system or a style.

I don't think I can describe our method, as that was expressly forbidden in this thread.


----------



## marques (Jun 23, 2017)

We can tell the speciality, objectives, history, benefits...


DaveB said:


> All martial arts train air techniques.


Not true.


DaveB said:


> They all do 2-person drills of some sort and they all incorporate some degree of fitness. Everything else is just details and preferences.


_Details_ are the difference between the common and the excellent. What would you consider a good (or different) martial art?

Life is better when we appreciate the _small_ things.


----------



## Buka (Jun 23, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Hello all, I posted a couple of times before a long absence so I won't be offended if no one remembers me (or cares).
> 
> I thought I would try and flog some life into one of my pet deceased equines...
> 
> Can you describe your karate (or other art) style *WITHOUT* reference to your training methods/class stducture etc?



Piece of cake -

American Karate
kəˈrädē/ - _Noun - No such thing. Made up mishmash of stuff. Still making stuff up as they go along._


----------



## Ironbear24 (Jun 23, 2017)

A collection of what I have learned through various instructors and experiences.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 23, 2017)

Buka said:


> Piece of cake -
> 
> American Karate
> kəˈrädē/ - _Noun - No such thing. Made up mishmash of stuff. Still making stuff up as they go along._


What makes it even better is when it's said in a Boston accent.
Car-ra-dee.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 23, 2017)

marques said:


> We can tell the speciality, objectives, history, benefits...
> 
> Not true.
> 
> ...



Which martial arts don't ever drill techniques without resistance?

As to good or excellent, that's beyond the scope of the question. Obviously details are important to outcomes but if every class is different to every other within the same style a focus on details takes us out of broad types like shotokan or jeet kun do and into the style of the individual.


----------



## marques (Jun 24, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Which martial arts don't ever drill techniques without resistance?


Is 'air techniques' the same as 'techniques without resistance'? Anyway, all styles I tried or trained, techniques were applied on someone or something since the beginning: self defence, krav maga, boxe de rue, systema, kickboxing, Muay Thai... Well if we consider shadow boxing, used as warm-up, as air techniques you're quite right.

Purely 'air techniques' I even do not consider martial, but training  techniques with little resistance is a first level in training. Is something wrong with that? Or 'all' martial arts are correct? What is your disappointment about MA?


----------



## DaveB (Jun 24, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I believe that the principles upon which our system is built are indeed shared by many other systems.  But the way in which we train to develop those principles as a driving power for our technique, and just how it manifests, is unique to our method.



So might not the manifestation of your principles be the thing that differentiates your style from the next?

How come it's not the method of fighting that distinguishes the fighting style?

The absence I mentioned in my post to Hoshin is precisely that: fighting.

I believe martial arts were created to encapsulate specific strategies that were then supported and ingrained through their training regimes.

You see this in boxing and MMA all the time. For all the talk of homogenising fighting with a boxing/muay Thai stand-up game, a wrestling game and a ground game, there have emerged not just fighters but champions, displaying unique fighting methods.

Compare Mohammed Ali to Mike Tyson (in his prime). One used footwork and distance to snipe his opponents before coming in for the kill. The other used body movement to evade everything while close up and bludgeon his opponents.

Their training differed because it was helping each of them be better at their specific fighting style, but ultimately faster tougher stronger is what training is about. Without the fighting style to guide their requirements their training would be the same.

I think Itosufication began the process of de-emphasising fighting methodology in karate, turning specialists of 3-5 Kata systems into 10-20 Kata generalists.

I think Bruce Lee put the nail in the coffin by popularizing the cool and pragmatic sounding "take whatever works" philosophy.

Whatever the cause, martial artists seem to place all their emphasis on the development phase rather than the execution. How we conduct ourselves in a fight; our route from conflict start to conflict end is in my view, what defines a fighting style.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 24, 2017)

marques said:


> Is 'air techniques' the same as 'techniques without resistance'? Anyway, all styles I tried or trained, techniques were applied on someone or something since the beginning: self defence, krav maga, boxe de rue, systema, kickboxing, Muay Thai... Well if we consider shadow boxing, used as warm-up, as air techniques you're quite right.
> 
> Purely 'air techniques' I even do not consider martial, but training  techniques with little resistance is a first level in training. Is something wrong with that? Or 'all' martial arts are correct? What is your disappointment about MA?


???

Why do you keep thinking I am trying to make some sort of value judgement about ma?

I'm interested in distinct fighting styles. I find very often though that people don't believe they exist or that the few that do suck.

I'm curious about who actually has a strategic element to their art, what it is, and why others don't.

I have no disappointment in ma, nor do I care who thinks which styles are good or bad. I mentioned air techniques purely as a common component of ma training.


----------



## marques (Jun 24, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I'm curious about who actually has a strategic element to their art, what it is, and why others don't.


My strongest background is an hybrid self-defence system. The essential strategy there was avoiding opponent strengths. Nothing special, but having a range of options and no speciality (as a system - individuals could have), this strategy was quite mandatory.

At the end, the strategy was often short distance striking and putting the opponent on the ground (not much BJJ at that time). It was using the space between striking and grappling, without much wrestling curiously.

In Muay Thai, the strategy is quite similar. Having options from teep to clinch, it may be smart fighting in the range that doesn't please the opponent. Or just using our A game, if it is good enough. Or using a mix of both.

Ps: Sorry if I misunderstand you, twice.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 24, 2017)

marques said:


> My strongest background is an hybrid self-defence system. The essential strategy there was avoiding opponent strengths. Nothing special, but having a range of options and no speciality (as a system - individuals could have), this strategy was quite mandatory.
> 
> At the end, the strategy was often short distance striking and putting the opponent on the ground (not much BJJ at that time). It was using the space between striking and grappling, without much wrestling curiously.
> 
> ...



No worries.

Did the self defence strategy manifest purely in terms of the fight or did you apply it to pre-fight conflict management?


----------



## marques (Jun 24, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Did the self defence strategy manifest purely in terms of the fight or did you apply it to pre-fight conflict management?


Also to pre-fight conflict management. It is hard to assess the fighting skills of someone before the fight itself. But we can 'guess' their fitness level, how many they are, check the environment and escape routes, intentions, hidden weapons... and chose the best option accordingly. Also, I am not great at defending punches, and every punch in the eyes is effective, so avoiding opponent's punching range is the only sort of standard I have.

It may seem too much thinking for a conflictuous moment. But if you train self defence every day or week, always listening the same advises, these assessments become natural. Sometimes it is my thinking exercise: If that guy comes to me looking for trouble right now, what could I do? How many they are? Am I alone? Do I need to protect someone else? Do I know the place? And so on. I do not have a standard solution. If time is short, my body may act without conscious decision. Hopefully, not much trouble last years (and I hope I am not worse than I think, which is another trap).


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 24, 2017)

DaveB said:


> So might not the manifestation of your principles be the thing that differentiates your style from the next?
> 
> How come it's not the method of fighting that distinguishes the fighting style?
> 
> ...


Fighting is chaotic, unpredictable, and ugly.  Technique breaks down and deteriorates in a real fight.  So fighting can look like anything or like nothing. 

So train the principles and apply those principles to your techniques, but understand that your techniques will deteriorate in the chaos. And so regardless of what system you train, when in a fight they are all likely to look much alike, tho of course maybe not exactly.

How you train the principles such as how do you generate your power, is what defines your style.

In a real fight, strategy needs to be simple.  The fight should be over quickly, there is no time to develop and apply a sophisticated strategy.

In a competition fight that is likely to last some time and not be over quickly, you can have time to develop a more sophisticated strategy.  That is a different situation.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 24, 2017)

I Think I get it. We focus on basics, good structure and work rate. With a heavy wrestling and standing striking emphasis.

Our theory is we can deny a more technical guy by keeping good structure and forcing them to take risks. And work harder than they would like. They will have a dog fight on their hands.

We will generally fight Conservatively. Rather than be especially tactically clever.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 25, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Fighting is chaotic, unpredictable, and ugly.  Technique breaks down and deteriorates in a real fight.  So fighting can look like anything or like nothing.
> 
> So train the principles and apply those principles to your techniques, but understand that your techniques will deteriorate in the chaos. And so regardless of what system you train, when in a fight they are all likely to look much alike, tho of course maybe not exactly.
> 
> ...



I don't deny that simple strategies are best.
Take Ali's game plan as I described it above:
Keep distance with footwork and snipe as opponents close, then once they are sufficiently dazed enter and destroy.

With a simple plan like this you immediately know what to do in any conflict or confrontation: Step 1 create distance.
That might mean changing location or shoving away a close adversary or just backing up. Regardless, an overarching strategy gives a clear path to victory.

Consider the preamble to the fight. Aggressive posturing, arguing etc. You know your going to want distance so while your arguing you are setting your position.

The mechanical principles are an integral part of a style, but they should in my view, be in service to the strategic principles. If your working around distance and footwork and solid jabs as your work horse, that will shape how you generate power.

I believe a martial art is one or more core strategies (like the Ali pkan above) embodied through a number of specific tactics (like timing the jab against the opponents advance, or bridging and chi-sau in wing chun) and supported by complimentary mechanical principles of power generation, movement and stability.

Yes fighting is chaotic but the purpose of any martial training is to try to ride the chaos and exert some control over the situation. If we submit to the chaos I think we miss an opportunity to master it.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 25, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I Think I get it. We focus on basics, good structure and work rate. With a heavy wrestling and standing striking emphasis.
> 
> Our theory is we can deny a more technical guy by keeping good structure and forcing them to take risks. And work harder than they would like. They will have a dog fight on their hands.
> 
> We will generally fight Conservatively. Rather than be especially tactically clever.



Drop Bear, does this general plan have any specific tactics behind it? For example, do you personally or your school aim to win more through ground work etc. Can you convert your game plan into conflict management?

If i remember right your an MMA guy? If so i  imagine you'd be less inclined to have a core strategy as a style because the teaching has to be adaptive to different mixes of ma background.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 25, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Hello all, I posted a couple of times before a long absence so I won't be offended if no one remembers me (or cares).
> 
> I thought I would try and flog some life into one of my pet deceased equines...
> 
> Can you describe your karate (or other art) style *WITHOUT* reference to your training methods/class stducture etc?


In some cases, the difference in training methods is part of the style, so leaving those out doesn't fully describe it.

I'll take a shot at my own, though. Nihon Goshin Aikido is a self-defense-oriented art that utilizes both striking and grappling (throws/locks/takedowns). Among the primary principles is "aiki" - the ideal concept of using the momentum/inertia of an attack so efficiently that little strength is used to effect the technique. While that is among the primary principles, the art is more focused on defensive usefulness, so we sometimes (often?) use less "aiki", where there's a simpler, more direct response available.


----------



## JP3 (Jun 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> In some cases, the difference in training methods is part of the style, so leaving those out doesn't fully describe it.
> 
> I'll take a shot at my own, though. Nihon Goshin Aikido is a self-defense-oriented art that utilizes both striking and grappling (throws/locks/takedowns). Among the primary principles is "aiki" - the ideal concept of using the momentum/inertia of an attack so efficiently that little strength is used to effect the technique. While that is among the primary principles, the art is more focused on defensive usefulness, so we sometimes (often?) use less "aiki", where there's a simpler, more direct response available.


What you said = what I do.

DB's place's strategic concept is where we're coming from, too, but without the throwing of bombs is all.  Well.... for me personally not my people, if you call a leg-kick a bomb, that'd be me, too.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> In some cases, the difference in training methods is part of the style, so leaving those out doesn't fully describe it.
> 
> I'll take a shot at my own, though. Nihon Goshin Aikido is a self-defense-oriented art that utilizes both striking and grappling (throws/locks/takedowns). Among the primary principles is "aiki" - the ideal concept of using the momentum/inertia of an attack so efficiently that little strength is used to effect the technique. While that is among the primary principles, the art is more focused on defensive usefulness, so we sometimes (often?) use less "aiki", where there's a simpler, more direct response available.


It may be due to a passing familiarity with Aikido but yours is the first description that lets me at least guess at how you go about trying to win a fight. 

This goes to the question at the heart of my point. Why do TMA fighters not define their arts by the fighting bit? Do we practice to get good at practicing or to get good at fighting?

As an aside I think I remember reading in the book Aikido and the dynamic sphere, an example of using the aiki principle in conversation to difuse conflict pre fight. Aikido was definitely designed philosoohy first.

So anyway, cats out the bag, so perhaps a rephrase will help.

How does your fighting art fight? How does it win?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 25, 2017)

JP3 said:


> What you said = what I do.
> 
> DB's place's strategic concept is where we're coming from, too, but without the throwing of bombs is all.  Well.... for me personally not my people, if you call a leg-kick a bomb, that'd be me, too.


That's a reasonable description of my approach. I can kick to the head (if they aren't taller than me), but probably won't, except in training (so people can train against head kicks). My bombs are hard throws - I'm probably more conservative with kicks (less kicking background than you, so that's to be expected). I focus a lot on denying their attack (breaking its structure - therefore its power, etc.).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 25, 2017)

DaveB said:


> It may be due to a passing familiarity with Aikido but yours is the first description that lets me at least guess at how you go about trying to win a fight.
> 
> This goes to the question at the heart of my point. Why do TMA fighters not define their arts by the fighting bit? Do we practice to get good at practicing or to get good at fighting?
> 
> ...


I think many TMA folks define their art the way it was defined to them - in contrast to similar arts. In that light, the way they win fights often isn't the differentiator. What makes the style different (in those cases) is how they develop that ability. Some focus more on hard sparring, others on a mix of sparring and forms, etc.


----------



## Martial D (Jun 25, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Fighting is chaotic, unpredictable, and ugly. *Ineffective/untested* Technique breaks down and deteriorates in a real fight.  So fighting *with untested/ineffective technique* can look like anything or like nothing.



Fixed that for you


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 25, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I don't deny that simple strategies are best.
> Take Ali's game plan as I described it above:
> Keep distance with footwork and snipe as opponents close, then once they are sufficiently dazed enter and destroy.
> 
> ...


Ali's plan works in competiton where he has the time to develop and implement it.  That is too much for a self defense situation.  You do not have the time for that.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 25, 2017)

But thats why we discuss these things in terms of principles. You adapt a principle to your situation.






How can there not be time to try to make distance? A boxer in a match is facing a toughened opponent alert to potential blows and is hindered by rules amd safety padding.

Translate the strategy to self defence and bare knuckles on untrained faces take a multi round strategy into an instant victory, as evidenced by the video above.

Besides, this was one example of one strategy, even if it did not hold up it wouldnt invalidate the argument.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Drop Bear, does this general plan have any specific tactics behind it? For example, do you personally or your school aim to win more through ground work etc. Can you convert your game plan into conflict management?
> 
> If i remember right your an MMA guy? If so i  imagine you'd be less inclined to have a core strategy as a style because the teaching has to be adaptive to different mixes of ma background.



Yeah there is specific tactics.

Basically we will keep the fight standing. Or work on standing back up. So we will give up submission opportunities to keep positions. We dont jump guard. Or do arm bars off mount as a rule of thumb. We also have a couple of golden glove boxers now.

We tend to pressue fight a bit. Use a lot of cardio. Use a lot of energy to win the standing wrestle or to escape off the bottom.

There are co servative specifics. We run people over to take them down rather than lift them. And a lot of the takedowns have similar and simple entries.

We dont do a lot of submissions.

To adapt to other systems we do good structure. The other guy doesnt get a free arm, head or underhook. They dont get the space in the hips to Judo.

Striking changes on the guy. I am very straight line. Coach is more slippery gypsy.






Not sure exactly what you meqn by conflict management.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2017)

DaveB said:


> But thats why we discuss these things in terms of principles. You adapt a principle to your situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Distance is heaps safer in a street fight as you can apply more technical martial arts reather than create a contest of strength.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Ali's plan works in competiton where he has the time to develop and implement it.  That is too much for a self defense situation.  You do not have the time for that.



Yeah. But are you looking at ali's plan as one big plan?

Someone would have put a rush on him at some point and he would have had a plan for that as well. Someone would have clipped him and he would have a plan for that.

If we break these ring fights into shorter fights we encounter a lot of different situationals.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 25, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But are you looking at ali's plan as one big plan?
> 
> Someone would have put a rush on him at some point and he would have had a plan for that as well. Someone would have clipped him and he would have a plan for that.
> 
> If we break these ring fights into shorter fights we encounter a lot of different situationals.



Which is why martial arts have more than one form/kata etc and why there may be a variety of skills being taught.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 25, 2017)

DaveB said:


> But thats why we discuss these things in terms of principles. You adapt a principle to your situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Was this reply to me or to someone else?


----------



## DaveB (Jun 26, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Was this reply to me or to someone else?


To you


----------



## DaveB (Jun 26, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> ...What makes the style different (in those cases) is how they develop that ability. Some focus more on hard sparring, others on a mix of sparring and forms, etc.



I think that though it may not have been expressed, strategies are usually still decipherable from elements such as forms and core mechanics.

As I mentioned, I've never encountered a teacher who didn't hybridise his training at least a little. No two classes are the same even within a big style like Shotokan, hence the whole guest instructor thing. 

Surely if it were the training that made the style, and every class trains differently, then each class is it's own style and commonalities between aikido groups or wing chun branches are irrelevant?


----------



## DaveB (Jun 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Not sure exactly what you mean by conflict management.



Pre-fight.

Can your fighting philosophy be reimagined to offer you guidance on managing the environment/positioning or even the verbal exchanges that lead to conflict?

I mentioned the aiki redirection of aggression used to difuse a conversation example. Another might be to build on the Ali strategy, looking to move to a more spacious or uncluttered area/ increasing the space between you/ responding to verbal aggression with calm non-aggression interspersed with warnings about consequences either violent or legal (evade and jab)... 

You could take that last one further and wait for a sign of hesitation or wavering resolve to launch an all out pre-emptive assault.

Basically converting your ring strategy to real world self defence.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 26, 2017)

DaveB said:


> But thats why we discuss these things in terms of principles. You adapt a principle to your situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Strategy and principles are not the same thing.  Principles are the engine that drive and power your techniques.  Strategy/tactics is how you approach a confrontation, how you create opportunity to apply your techniques.

On some level, yes you always need to pay attention to distance.  But, in a competition such as a boxing match, you have time to develop more sophisticated strategies, things like fakes and setups to lure an opponent into a trap.  When a fight is scheduled to go a certain number of rounds or minutes, you can employ a lot more sophisticated strategy like that.  You are facing an opponent who is also trained, you both know the terms of the confrontation, and you both approach the fight with some level of caution.

In a fight, you are looking to end it very quickly.  You are not there willingly ( unless you are the instigator, and then you are a predator and an a-hole) you don't know your opponents level of training or experience, and You don't have time to set traps.  You need to drop him right now.  So you need to be very direct and very aggressive.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 26, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Strategy and principles are not the same thing.  Principles are the engine that drive and power your techniques.  Strategy/tactics is how you approach a confrontation, how you create opportunity to apply your techniques.
> 
> On some level, yes you always need to pay attention to distance.  But, in a competition such as a boxing match, you have time to develop more sophisticated strategies, things like fakes and setups to lure an opponent into a trap.  When a fight is scheduled to go a certain number of rounds or minutes, you can employ a lot more sophisticated strategy like that.  You are facing an opponent who is also trained, you both know the terms of the confrontation, and you both approach the fight with some level of caution.
> 
> In a fight, you are looking to end it very quickly.  You are not there willingly ( unless you are the instigator, and then you are a predator and an a-hole) you don't know your opponents level of training or experience, and You don't have time to set traps.  You need to drop him right now.  So you need to be very direct and very aggressive.



Direct and aggressive is one way, not the only way. Even with that, direct how? Aggressive with what?

One of the best ways to maximise power is to hit the opponent as they move forward. A simple way to get them to walk into your punch is to move away so that they chase. 
Simple effective and maximises your safety.

I feel you are fixating on the fact that I've picked a boxers strategy as an example and missing the real point being made. Yes, in a boxing ring you can employ more sophisticated tactics, but I didn't mention such things because they aren't required in the context of self defence.

Just because you can make something more complicated doesn't mean the simplified version "needs" to be more complicated to work; as evidenced by the video.

Strategies are indeed a type of principle, in that a principle is a rule that one adapts to the situation. 
Sun Tzu's art of war would not be much use to business leaders if strategies weren't adaptable ideas. 

The power generation you mention comes under the bracket of Mechanical principles. The setups and traps you mentioned are Tactical principles and together with the Strategic principles these 3 areas define the totality of any given fighting system (at least that's the theory I work from).

That being said,


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 26, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Direct and aggressive is one way, not the only way. Even with that, direct how? Aggressive with what?
> 
> One of the best ways to maximise power is to hit the opponent as they move forward. A simple way to get them to walk into your punch is to move away so that they chase.
> Simple effective and maximises your safety.
> ...


Well, you were asking about other people's systems, if I recall correctly.  So I'm just telling you like i see it.

I never said it's the only way.  But it is the way that makes the most sense to me.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 26, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, you were asking about other people's systems, if I recall correctly.  So I'm just telling you like i see it.
> 
> I never said it's the only way.  But it is the way that makes the most sense to me.


No worries.

As I said before I am curious about your style, both in strategy and training.  It would be great if you could elaborate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 26, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I think that though it may not have been expressed, strategies are usually still decipherable from elements such as forms and core mechanics.
> 
> As I mentioned, I've never encountered a teacher who didn't hybridise his training at least a little. No two classes are the same even within a big style like Shotokan, hence the whole guest instructor thing.
> 
> Surely if it were the training that made the style, and every class trains differently, then each class is it's own style and commonalities between aikido groups or wing chun branches are irrelevant?


There are differences within a style, true enough. There are some things that are fairly common within a style, and may differentiate it from other styles. In this, I'm speaking of where two styles are similar in approach (strategy, overall techniques, etc.), but have an easily identifiable difference in how they train.

It's not all styles that differentiate this way, but some surely do.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 26, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> There are differences within a style, true enough. There are some things that are fairly common within a style, and may differentiate it from other styles. In this, I'm speaking of where two styles are similar in approach (strategy, overall techniques, etc.), but have an easily identifiable difference in how they train.
> 
> It's not all styles that differentiate this way, but some surely do.


Can you give an example?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 26, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Pre-fight.
> 
> Can your fighting philosophy be reimagined to offer you guidance on managing the environment/positioning or even the verbal exchanges that lead to conflict?
> 
> ...



There are elements you can build off.






Cage craft is a science of controlling the environment you fight in. And you have to be aware of where you are at all times. You also have to be aware enough of your surroundings to listen to your corner and then apply their instructions.
Cutting off the Cage in MMA
The training itself is never done in a vacuume. Sparring you have to watch out for other guys. going off the mat or even hitting things like the fridge.
There is a lot of tactics applied in MMA and that helps you plan an approach and adapt to different situations under stress.

As far as verbal exchages. You get trained in that because you are expected to meet the guy you fight. We as a school don't engage in pre fight duchebaggery. So a level of mental control is essential.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 26, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Strategy and principles are not the same thing.  Principles are the engine that drive and power your techniques.  Strategy/tactics is how you approach a confrontation, how you create opportunity to apply your techniques.
> 
> On some level, yes you always need to pay attention to distance.  But, in a competition such as a boxing match, you have time to develop more sophisticated strategies, things like fakes and setups to lure an opponent into a trap.  When a fight is scheduled to go a certain number of rounds or minutes, you can employ a lot more sophisticated strategy like that.  You are facing an opponent who is also trained, you both know the terms of the confrontation, and you both approach the fight with some level of caution.
> 
> In a fight, you are looking to end it very quickly.  You are not there willingly ( unless you are the instigator, and then you are a predator and an a-hole) you don't know your opponents level of training or experience, and You don't have time to set traps.  You need to drop him right now.  So you need to be very direct and very aggressive.



Why do you think guys in a ring fight wait and watch and test?

I mean they dont want a fight to go longer than it needs to either.


----------



## JP3 (Jun 26, 2017)

DaveB said:


> So anyway, cats out the bag, so perhaps a rephrase will help.
> 
> How does your fighting art fight? How does it win?


My art? Well, I am personally coming to the point of view that aikido takes a really long time to get good enough at if by itself, it's probably best to have come to aikido after reaching proficiency in at least one other art, preferably two -- a grappling art and a striking art, so that you can really take advantage of both types of opportunities. The two types are: 1) things you can roll with, go with, expand/contract just a bit, or extend/shorten slightly, to gain advantage; and 2) Things you can blow up or  blow through.

My personal skill set has at least passing competence with grappling and striking both, and my wind is still pretty good, so -- barring getting pre-empted by Geoff Thompson or some such -- I'm most likely to stay loose, conservative and a bit on the extended range side if possible, and get in a tight clinched position if not, and just hand out until I find out what the other guy is good at. Then, I'm going to do the thing that he's not good at, i.e. attack his weakness.  If he's got to stand up to fight long range at me with strikes, I'm either going to come in tight, leg-kick the bejeezus out of his favorite support leg and throw him when the opp presents.... like that.

Of course, it'd be my luck that the guy was already a BJJ black belt and was just reacting witht he thing he's been most-recently training, such as boxing or savate or whatever and then wouldn't that be just a wonderful tactical move, eh!


----------



## DaveB (Jun 27, 2017)

JP3 said:


> My art? Well, I am personally coming to the point of view that aikido takes a really long time to get good enough at if by itself, it's probably best to have come to aikido after reaching proficiency in at least one other art, preferably two -- a grappling art and a striking art, so that you can really take advantage of both types of opportunities. The two types are: 1) things you can roll with, go with, expand/contract just a bit, or extend/shorten slightly, to gain advantage; and 2) Things you can blow up or  blow through.
> 
> My personal skill set has at least passing competence with grappling and striking both, and my wind is still pretty good, so -- barring getting pre-empted by Geoff Thompson or some such -- I'm most likely to stay loose, conservative and a bit on the extended range side if possible, and get in a tight clinched position if not, and just hand out until I find out what the other guy is good at. Then, I'm going to do the thing that he's not good at, i.e. attack his weakness.  If he's got to stand up to fight long range at me with strikes, I'm either going to come in tight, leg-kick the bejeezus out of his favorite support leg and throw him when the opp presents.... like that.
> 
> Of course, it'd be my luck that the guy was already a BJJ black belt and was just reacting witht he thing he's been most-recently training, such as boxing or savate or whatever and then wouldn't that be just a wonderful tactical move, eh!



The only problem I see with that strategy is that by the time you work out what he's not good at, the thing he is good at may have laid you out already.

Might it not be more direct to pick something that you are good at and focus on getting it out from any position? 

That would allow you to take the fight to the opponent and try to end things as quickly as possible, minimising their opportunities to do the same to you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 27, 2017)

DaveB said:


> The only problem I see with that strategy is that by the time you work out what he's not good at, the thing he is good at may have laid you out already.
> 
> Might it not be more direct to pick something that you are good at and focus on getting it out from any position?
> 
> That would allow you to take the fight to the opponent and try to end things as quickly as possible, minimising their opportunities to do the same to you.


One of my early instructors was a police officer, and his approach (which seemed to work well for him) was to assume what they do first (their go-to) was what they were best at. So, if they wanted to box, he'd grapple. If they wanted to grapple, he boxed.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 27, 2017)

DaveB said:


> No worries.
> 
> As I said before I am curious about your style, both in strategy and training.  It would be great if you could elaborate.


Our training methods are difficult to describe without being able to show, but we use a full-body rotation as a mechanism for generating power.  To develop this, we practice a lot of rotating back and forth, both by itself and with technique, to learn that body connection.  You could say that the movement is exaggerated, as we feel that helps engrain that full-body connection, helps you understand it and make it automatic.  Once you understand it, then the exaggeration can be dropped during actual use and application, while still getting the power from that full body connection.

In use, there is a philosophy of all or none.  If it is worth fighting over, then you fight with the intent to utterly destroy.  If it isn't worth destroying, then perhaps it isn't worth fighting over.  That is an acknowledgement of the seriousness of fighting, that it is not a game.

I also realize that is an ideal that is not always practical in modern society.  So, for what it's worth.

At any rate, this makes for a very aggressive system of all out attack, with very powerful techniques.  It isn't terribly complicated.   I personally feel that a lot of people make all this stuff more complicated than it needs to be.

Without showing it, I don't think i can describe it much better than that.


----------



## JP3 (Jun 27, 2017)

DaveB said:


> The only problem I see with that strategy is that by the time you work out what he's not good at, the thing he is good at may have laid you out already.
> 
> Might it not be more direct to pick something that you are good at and focus on getting it out from any position?


It's been a long, long time since I ran across anyone like that in the first example, save for getting caught by surprise (pre-emptive).

And, the latter technique simply does not exist.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> One of my early instructors was a police officer, and his approach (which seemed to work well for him) was to assume what they do first (their go-to) was what they were best at. So, if they wanted to box, he'd grapple. If they wanted to grapple, he boxed.



I get that for the ring but I can't see it for self defence.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 28, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Our training methods are difficult to describe without being able to show, but we use a full-body rotation as a mechanism for generating power.  To develop this, we practice a lot of rotating back and forth, both by itself and with technique, to learn that body connection.  You could say that the movement is exaggerated, as we feel that helps engrain that full-body connection, helps you understand it and make it automatic.  Once you understand it, then the exaggeration can be dropped during actual use and application, while still getting the power from that full body connection.
> 
> In use, there is a philosophy of all or none.  If it is worth fighting over, then you fight with the intent to utterly destroy.  If it isn't worth destroying, then perhaps it isn't worth fighting over.  That is an acknowledgement of the seriousness of fighting, that it is not a game.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the effort, I will try and look it up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 28, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I get that for the ring but I can't see it for self defence.


He wasn't in the ring. He was talking about dealing with someone as a LEO.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> He wasn't in the ring. He was talking about dealing with someone as a LEO.



Doesn't really make sense though. If someone tries to punch you you generally want to deal with that punch. if they grab you you want to deal with the grab.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Doesn't really make sense though. If someone tries to punch you you generally want to deal with that punch. if they grab you you want to deal with the grab.


Yes, you deal with the punch. Grappling doesn't ignore punches - it just doesn't respond to them with punches.

I've found reasonable success following his strategy, even with partners within the same art. If they come in ready to spar/strike, I want to confound that, and I find attacking their structure with grappling is the quickest way. If they want to grapple, I'd like to keep them away, and strikes are the best way (generically, paired with my movement) to keep them at a distance.

Of course, if I know them and know where their strengths are compared to mine, that can change the equation. One of my partners was also training in Shotokan. If he wanted to grapple, I grappled, because I wasn't going to win a striking contest with him. If one of the purple belts came at me wanting to grapple, I'd grapple, because I knew I had the upper hand there, and they were less likely to slip in a throw/takedown on me than to slip in a punch.


----------



## DaveB (Jun 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> He wasn't in the ring. He was talking about dealing with someone as a LEO.


I suppose if your talking about a first response to a first attack rather than circling and feeling them out ring style it makes sense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 29, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I suppose if your talking about a first response to a first attack rather than circling and feeling them out ring style it makes sense.


That's pretty much it. People tend (not always, but a decent general rule) to lead with their most confident attack. People who are strong at striking and weak at grappling will tend to come in striking. Someone who is confident in both could lead with either, so there's not much to lose in that case, assuming you're reasonably equally confident in both, yourself.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, you deal with the punch. Grappling doesn't ignore punches - it just doesn't respond to them with punches.
> 
> I've found reasonable success following his strategy, even with partners within the same art. If they come in ready to spar/strike, I want to confound that, and I find attacking their structure with grappling is the quickest way. If they want to grapple, I'd like to keep them away, and strikes are the best way (generically, paired with my movement) to keep them at a distance.
> 
> Of course, if I know them and know where their strengths are compared to mine, that can change the equation. One of my partners was also training in Shotokan. If he wanted to grapple, I grappled, because I wasn't going to win a striking contest with him. If one of the purple belts came at me wanting to grapple, I'd grapple, because I knew I had the upper hand there, and they were less likely to slip in a throw/takedown on me than to slip in a punch.


Back to this style over substance idea.

It is something we don't do tactically as our wrestling has strikes in it and our striking has wrestling.

To get a takedown We strike. it is part of that takedown.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 29, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I suppose if your talking about a first response to a first attack rather than circling and feeling them out ring style it makes sense.



Do you understand why there is that feeling out proccess?


----------



## DaveB (Jul 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Do you understand why there is that feeling out proccess?


That's a pretty random question.

 I believe so. Why?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 3, 2017)

DaveB said:


> That's a pretty random question.
> 
> I believe so. Why?



Because you seem to discount feeling out an oponant as a viable defence strategy.

Which seems a bit suicidal.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 4, 2017)

Can you describe a self defence scenario where you would do so in the manner described?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 4, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Can you describe a self defence scenario where you would do so in the manner described?



Ok. a person is upset with me. I back off but he comes towards me swinging punches. I nail him with a punch but he doesnt die and he doesn't back off. So from there I control the distance and reengage in a safe manner untill either I have room to escape or i beat him untill he stops.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 4, 2017)

I presume the "circling and testing" I mentioned is in the "control the distance" part of your scenario.? I'm guessing that his renewed attack was in the style of a competent mmaist?

If not then I think we are talking about different things because there's nowhere in your description that you do what I was talking about.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 4, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I presume the "circling and testing" I mentioned is in the "control the distance" part of your scenario.? I'm guessing that his renewed attack was in the style of a competent mmaist?
> 
> If not then I think we are talking about different things because there's nowhere in your description that you do what I was talking about.


If you look at videos of attacks that aren't sneak attacks (so, mostly what I'd classify as "anger attacks") they sometimes back off a bit before following in, if the first sortie isn't successful. I think that's the point DB is talking about for circling and testing. You actually have a chance to control distance there, and they need not be competent (nor incompetent) for that strategy to be applied.


----------



## JP3 (Jul 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Ok. a person is upset with me. I back off but he comes towards me swinging punches. I nail him with a punch but he doesnt die and he doesn't back off. So from there I control the distance and reengage in a safe manner untill either I have room to escape or i beat him untill he stops.


I'd say that's just about every encounter I've ever had, except for while at work, either as a medic or as a bouncer, in which case escape wasn't the other option it was until the cavalry showed up in the bodies of the other back-up guys or PD.

It is unfortunate that opponents don't cooperate and just fall over when you hit them with the Big Punch like they do on TV, darn it.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 4, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I presume the "circling and testing" I mentioned is in the "control the distance" part of your scenario.? I'm guessing that his renewed attack was in the style of a competent mmaist?
> 
> If not then I think we are talking about different things because there's nowhere in your description that you do what I was talking about.



I thought there was no specific situation. Untrained people also test. Why do you think that is?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 4, 2017)

JP3 said:


> I'd say that's just about every encounter I've ever had, except for while at work, either as a medic or as a bouncer, in which case escape wasn't the other option it was until the cavalry showed up in the bodies of the other back-up guys or PD.
> 
> It is unfortunate that opponents don't cooperate and just fall over when you hit them with the Big Punch like they do on TV, darn it.



Jackals on a Buffalo.


----------



## JP3 (Jul 5, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Jackals on a Buffalo.


Precisely.

Why ARE there that many bouncers in a bar? Why DO so many LEO's show up at one time?

Because the basic force multiplier of having a buddy, or five of them, with you is the most effective self-defense, or fight, tactic ever invented.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 5, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I thought there was no specific situation. Untrained people also test. Why do you think that is?



No offence, but I don't really care. 

Im sure your view works for you and I'm equally sure that beyond the semantics we have more in common in this area than we have in conflict, but ultimately the vagaries of self defence are quite low on my list of priorities. 

Apologies.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 5, 2017)

DaveB said:


> No offence, but I don't really care.
> 
> Im sure your view works for you and I'm equally sure that beyond the semantics we have more in common in this area than we have in conflict, but ultimately the vagaries of self defence are quite low on my list of priorities.
> 
> Apologies.



You don't care what is actually involved in self defense?

I thought you were Mr self defense.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 5, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You don't care what is actually involved in self defense?
> 
> I thought you were Mr self defense.


I don't care what you think you know or that I don't know or what semantics you wish to use to manufacture an argument on this topic.

In short, it's not going to work.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 5, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I don't care what you think you know or that I don't know or what semantics you wish to use to manufacture an argument on this topic.
> 
> In short, it's not going to work.



You created this. I asked a question. You avoided that question and asked your own.

I answered that question. You apparently don't find fault in my answer because you haven't suggested it is wrong.

Of course it will work. That is how we are supposed to discuss a topic.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 7, 2017)

BUMP.

Anybody else who practices an art with a guiding combative principle?


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 3, 2017)

Buka said:


> Piece of cake -
> 
> American Karate
> kəˈrädē/ - _Noun - No such thing. Made up mishmash of stuff. Still making stuff up as they go along._



This is true for any martial art if you go back far enough.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> This is true for any martial art if you go back far enough.


And should continue to be true (that last part).


----------

