# ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.



## DaveB

This to me is self evident but many disagree, so what better topic for discussion.

So first to the terms:
Fighting style: method of conducting fights. For most this includes trying to "win" but not always.
The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of.

Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive.

Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight?

A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style.

Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you.
Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work.

Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas.
1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter.

2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion or interruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights.

The training in concept 1 is to develop the universally neccessary skills in concept 2, IN ADDITION TO the core methods of the style.

Fundamentally it comes down to, "What does it take to hit with x, apply y and make use of z?".

I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge. 

IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works.

And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one).
I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work.

So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Disagree with the terms? Let's hear it!


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> This to me is self evident but many disagree, so what better topic for discussion.
> 
> So first to the terms:
> Fighting style: method of conducting fights. For most this includes trying to "win" but not always.
> The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of.
> 
> Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight?
> 
> A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style.
> 
> Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you.
> Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work.
> 
> Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas.
> 1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter.
> 
> 2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion or interruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights.
> 
> The training in concept 1 is to develop the universally neccessary skills in concept 2, IN ADDITION TO the core methods of the style.
> 
> Fundamentally it comes down to, "What does it take to hit with x, apply y and make use of z?".
> 
> I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge.
> 
> IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works.
> 
> And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one).
> I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work.
> 
> So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Disagree with the terms? Let's hear it!


you neglected the strength, balance. Co ordination speed of the guy using the style, if all those are in good order it doesn't matter what the style is, your very likely to have a positive result. If all those are poor, it doesn't mater what the,style is, you likely going to lose.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

DaveB said:


> This to me is self evident but many disagree, so what better topic for discussion.
> 
> So first to the terms:
> Fighting style: method of conducting fights. For most this includes trying to "win" but not always.
> The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of.
> 
> Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight?
> 
> A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style.
> 
> Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you.
> Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work.
> 
> Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas.
> 1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter.
> 
> 2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion or interruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights.
> 
> The training in concept 1 is to develop the universally neccessary skills in concept 2, IN ADDITION TO the core methods of the style.
> 
> Fundamentally it comes down to, "What does it take to hit with x, apply y and make use of z?".
> 
> I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge.
> 
> IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works.
> 
> And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one).
> I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work.
> 
> So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Disagree with the terms? Let's hear it!


What are you considering a style here? You did a lot to describe what isn't a style, or what is needed to make a style, but (unless I'm missing it) you don't actually describe what you consider a style to mean.

Is it using your favorite sets of techniques? Is it being defensive/counterpunching/aggressive/wearing the other person down? Is it the range that you prefer to fight at?


----------



## CB Jones

Maybe but Jones-itsu-who- hit-u reigns supreme.


----------



## Charlemagne

I can't agree with all styles working, and probably not even most, but I would probably stipulate the following: Many more fighting styles then are commonly seen to work in a real situation, when trained properly, will work for their intended purpose.


----------



## Reedone816

Physical impairment limit the choices.

Sent from my Lenovo A7010a48 using Tapatalk


----------



## Midnight-shadow

kempodisciple said:


> What are you considering a style here? You did a lot to describe what isn't a style, or what is needed to make a style, but (unless I'm missing it) you don't actually describe what you consider a style to mean.
> 
> Is it using your favorite sets of techniques? Is it being defensive/counterpunching/aggressive/wearing the other person down? Is it the range that you prefer to fight at?



Well that is an entire discussion in itself. What is a style? It it the physical techniques you use? Or the principles you employ behind the techniques? Or is it the preferences you take when you fight (defensive vs offensive)? Or is a combination of all three together? In my own personal opinion, what differentiates one style from another is the principles behind the techniques. Just for example, Wing Chun, Karate and Boxing all have a straight punch, but each style uses the technique in a different way based on the principles of the style.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Midnight-shadow said:


> Well that is an entire discussion in itself. What is a style? It it the physical techniques you use? Or the principles you employ behind the techniques? Or is it the preferences you take when you fight (defensive vs offensive)? Or is a combination of all three together?



I agree with all of this, but it needs to be discussed before determining if any style would work. Since the OP started the discussion, whatever definition he uses I'm fine with using for the purpose of the discussion.



> In my own personal opinion, what differentiates one style from another is the principles behind the techniques. Just for example, Wing Chun, Karate and Boxing all have a straight punch, but each style uses the technique in a different way based on the principles of the style.



See, I think of that as two different philosophies, but to me the style would be more of the tactics and general intent of your movements in the fight.


----------



## Buka

DaveB said:


> This to me is self evident but many disagree, so what better topic for discussion.
> 
> So first to the terms:
> Fighting style: method of conducting fights. For most this includes trying to "win" but not always.
> The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of.
> 
> Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight?
> 
> A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style.
> 
> Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you.
> Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work.
> 
> Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas.
> 1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter.
> 
> 2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion or interruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights.
> 
> The training in concept 1 is to develop the universally neccessary skills in concept 2, IN ADDITION TO the core methods of the style.
> 
> Fundamentally it comes down to, "What does it take to hit with x, apply y and make use of z?".
> 
> I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge.
> 
> IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works.
> 
> And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one).
> I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work.
> 
> So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Disagree with the terms? Let's hear it!



By "work" I take it to mean in a fight, or in competitive contact sparring, yes?


----------



## drop bear

So at some point if you train this hard enough it is going to start working.


----------



## Flying Crane

Maybe this is semantics, but I don't really see it as a style that works or does not work.  Rather, it is a systematic (ideally) method of training, designed to help you develop useable skills.  Whether You are successful in the end depends on a lot of variables.  Your teacher may or may not be a good teacher.  You may or may not be a good and capable student.  You might be lazy and don't train with the diligence needed to develop skill.  The method itself may not be a good match for you, even tho it is very useful for others.  Some people just don't have a violent or aggressive bone in their body, and would be ineffective no matter what method and what teacher they have.  Other people are naturally athletic and aggressive and even tho they have no training they can beat up others who have had extensive training.

So...it really comes down to the individual and how well they used the training they received.  Historically, I am sure that every single method has produced competent fighters.  But people don't get to rest on history.  They still need to act for themselves.  

Ones mileage may vary.


----------



## Steve

IF you train to fight by grappling, you will become a better grapple, which might help you fight.   Maybe not though.  You get better at what you do.   If you do a lot of kata, you'll become pretty good at it.   If you do a lot of drills, you'll get better at those drills.  This is common sense in every human activity except self defense and martial arts, where people think they're going to get really good at one thing by doing another.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> IF you train to fight by grappling, you will become a better grapple, which might help you fight.   Maybe not though.  You get better at what you do.   If you do a lot of kata, you'll become pretty good at it.   If you do a lot of drills, you'll get better at those drills.  This is common sense in every human activity except self defense and martial arts, where people think they're going to get really good at one thing by doing another.


that's ignoring the fact that kata and drills help you install movement patterns, that do therefore assist in defence/ fighting. You can practise your soccer skills. With out an actual opponent. You can practise your golf driving with out a flag to aim at and you can practise you flying skills with out a real air plane


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> that's ignoring the fact that kata and drills help you install movement patterns, that do therefore assist in defence/ fighting. You can practise your soccer skills. With out an actual opponent. You can practise your golf driving with out a flag to aim at and you can practise you flying skills with out a real air plane


Maybe.  I say this all the time, though.  Practicing soccer skills is great, but if you never play soccer, you're missing a critical step.  you can practice your drive, but if you don't play at least some golf on an actual course, you're not actually learning to play golf.   Look at it this way.  Putting your time in at the range isn't the activity.   It's preparation for the activity.   If you never play golf, you aren't getting better at golfing.  Learning to drive at the range only gets you so far.   

If you don't fight, you're doing something else.  Which is totally okay.  Just understand that you're getting better at doing what you're actually doing.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Maybe.  I say this all the time, though.  Practicing soccer skills is great, but if you never play soccer, you're missing a critical step.  you can practice your drive, but if you don't play at least some golf on an actual course, you're not actually learning to play golf.   Look at it this way.  Putting your time in at the range isn't the activity.   It's preparation for the activity.   If you never play golf, you aren't getting better at golfing.  Learning to drive at the range only gets you so far.
> 
> If you don't fight, you're doing something else.  Which is totally okay.  Just understand that you're getting better at doing what you're actually doing.


but your point was they don't help you improve,and they do, both kata and dribbling round comes. You have to establish movement patterns before you can play soccer or fight


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> So at some point if you train this hard enough it is going to start working.


Dude. Read. The. Post.


----------



## DaveB

Flying Crane said:


> Maybe this is semantics, but I don't really see it as a style that works or does not work.  Rather, it is a systematic (ideally) method of training, designed to help you develop useable skills.  Whether You are successful in the end depends on a lot of variables.  Your teacher may or may not be a good teacher.  You may or may not be a good and capable student.  You might be lazy and don't train with the diligence needed to develop skill.  The method itself may not be a good match for you, even tho it is very useful for others.  Some people just don't have a violent or aggressive bone in their body, and would be ineffective no matter what method and what teacher they have.  Other people are naturally athletic and aggressive and even tho they have no training they can beat up others who have had extensive training.
> 
> So...it really comes down to the individual and how well they used the training they received.  Historically, I am sure that every single method has produced competent fighters.  But people don't get to rest on history.  They still need to act for themselves.
> 
> Ones mileage may vary.


This is precisely my point.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> but your point was they don't help you improve,and they do, both kata and dribbling round comes. You have to establish movement patterns before you can play soccer or fight


I didn't say that at all.   go back and try again.


----------



## Martial D

The op assumes that all styles are viable for combat 'if only trained right'

I guess only certain styles 'train right', because lots of them tend to flounder like a fish on land the second it's anything but kata or scripted drills.


----------



## webmaster786

All these works are matter as long as when you train right and have a tip-top teacher. The size of your body, your body language and the sex have nothing to do with the style you if desire to select. Mostly People think that your size and the body language regulate the style know little to nothing about martial arts, but styles are made to adapt to your body type.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> The op assumes that all styles are viable for combat 'if only trained right'
> 
> I guess only certain styles 'train right', because lots of them tend to flounder like a fish on land the second it's anything but kata or scripted drills.


I've yet to encounter anyone who has examined the training practices of every school in any one style, nor tested an anywhere near statistically relevant sample of their students fighting ability.

In other words this is a baseless claim.

It's easy to think we know something because we've seen a few examples on YouTube, but there's a big difference between what we've experienced and what is happening outside our little bubble.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> This is precisely my point.



Just because there are other variables does not mean style isn't a variable.

If you are suggesting that the variables could under the right circumstance work. Then yeah you are right.

You could get a guy who is big enough and bad enough to make a style work against a smaller weaker person that would not work under more even conditions.

But it is pretty silly from a practical point of view.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Just because there are other variables does not mean style isn't a variable.
> 
> If you are suggesting that the variables could under the right circumstance work. Then yeah you are right.
> 
> You could get a guy who is big enough and bad enough to make a style work against a smaller weaker person that would not work under more even conditions.
> 
> But it is pretty silly from a practical point of view.



Any style comparison has to be made from a base of equally attributed practitioners. So yes, I am going further than the above and arguing that a fighter can give a good accounting of himself if he has trained correctly, not if he is physically superior to begin with.

Style can be a variable in that a given style may be a poor fit against another because of their specific specialisms and martial culture of origin. For example I understand that Japanese sword work is not well equipped to deal with thrusting as compared to European swordsmanship. This is just due to the idiosyncrasies of their respective origins.

But the question being addressed is "does x style work?". Not, "will x style make me invincible in all combat?" Furthermore I argue that the essence of combat is universal making style v style a largely redundant concept, except in the above academic cases.

There were lots of points made to justify the position I've taken. Which in particular do you disagree with?


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> If you don't fight, you're doing something else.  Which is totally okay.  Just understand that you're getting better at doing what you're actually doing.



this is precisely what you said, you not doing " something else" you learning and practising essential movement patterns

the idea that  fighting makes you good at fighting with out any focus on learning the correct movement is clearly nonsense, other wise every kid who had been beaten up a lot would automatically be a good fighter


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> I've yet to encounter anyone who has examined the training practices of every school in any one style, nor tested an anywhere near statistically relevant sample of their students fighting ability.
> 
> In other words this is a baseless claim.
> 
> It's easy to think we know something because we've seen a few examples on YouTube, but there's a big difference between what we've experienced and what is happening outside our little bubble.


Lol.

Yes, we can't say for certain Russels teapot is NOT there, can we


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Just because there are other variables does not mean style isn't a variable.
> 
> If you are suggesting that the variables could under the right circumstance work. Then yeah you are right.
> 
> You could get a guy who is big enough and bad enough to make a style work against a smaller weaker person that would not work under more even conditions.
> 
> But it is pretty silly from a practical point of view.


I think your looking at it the wrong way, the styles that are the most effective are the ones that are the most demanding physically, therefore they have a built in physical advantage that is Impossible  to split from the style.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> Lol.
> 
> Yes, we can't say for certain Russels teapot is NOT there, can we



Sorry I don't get the reference.

Again though if you disagree why not point to the flawed argument and explain what is wrong with it. 

Sarcasm may amuse but it is a poor substitute for reason.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

DaveB said:


> Sorry I don't get the reference.
> 
> Again though if you disagree why not point to the flawed argument and explain what is wrong with it.
> 
> Sarcasm may amuse but it is a poor substitute for reason.



What is Russell's teapot?


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> Sorry I don't get the reference.
> 
> Again though if you disagree why not point to the flawed argument and explain what is wrong with it.
> 
> Sarcasm may amuse but it is a poor substitute for reason.


As are ad hominems, red herrings, argumentum ad ignorantium, and the misappropriation of sarcasm.

Sure, maybe somewhere out there someone is doing Tai Chi moves to beat someone up. Maybe. You have your beliefs and convictions, and I have the reality of training with just about every style that trains actual combat over the past 30 years or so. Some **** works, lots of **** doesn't work.  The **** that doesn't work tends not to train contact.

Does it not work because there's no contact or did they stop the contact when they realized it didn't work? Who knows, who cares. Chicken/egg

Sure, maybe there are hypothetical exceptions, but that brings us back to Russels teapot. Can't prove a negative.


----------



## Jenna

DaveB said:


> It's easy to think we know something because we've seen a few examples on YouTube, but there's a big difference between what we've experienced and what is happening outside our little bubble.


That is an interesting way to put that.. do you think the little bubble would surround an individual practitioner or a style or an whole art? thank you x


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> As are ad hominems, red herrings, argumentum ad ignorantium, and the misappropriation of sarcasm.
> 
> Sure, maybe somewhere out there someone is doing Tai Chi moves to beat someone up. Maybe. You have your beliefs and convictions, and I have the reality of training with just about every style that trains actual combat over the past 30 years or so. Some **** works, lots of **** doesn't work.  The **** that doesn't work tends not to train contact.
> 
> Does it not work because there's no contact or did they stop the contact when they realized it didn't work? Who knows, who cares. Chicken/egg
> 
> Sure, maybe there are hypothetical exceptions, but that brings us back to Russels teapot. Can't prove a negative.



So what your saying is you can't find a flaw in my arguments but you are sticking to your opinions anyway. 

I'd expect nothing less. 

But I certainly agree that contact is one of the important elements of "training It right". I just don't get why after 30 years of training you would feel that an idea like that was confined by style lines?

Also I'm quite happy to accept that some styles may have no one training in an effective way, though I think it's unlikely. I just don't think that there is anything stopping them from changing that because style and training are independent.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> So what your saying is you can't find a flaw in my arguments but you are sticking to your opinions anyway.
> 
> I'd expect nothing less.
> 
> But I certainly agree that contact is one of the important elements of "training It right". I just don't get why after 30 years of training you would feel that an idea like that was confined by style lines?
> 
> Also I'm quite happy to accept that some styles may have no one training in an effective way, though I think it's unlikely. I just don't think that there is anything stopping them from changing that because style and training are independent.


some styles have disappeared down an evolutionary black hole, tai chi being one of them, they are stuck in time and refuse to adapt and so lose any effectives' they might have had.

so if someone adapted the training and techneque to make it effective , then critics will say that's not tai Chi any more, as in tai,chi you stand there like a lemon in a,silly horse stance whilst people kick you. You moved so its not tai chi.

it's the same with wing Chun, if someone does it with effect, it can't be wing chun
its something of a parodox

proving yourself right immediately make you wrong,


----------



## DaveB

Jenna said:


> That is an interesting way to put that.. do you think the little bubble would surround an individual practitioner or a style or an whole art? thank you x


By bubble I was referring to the sphere of an individuals experiences.

If I watch a hundred wing chun fail videos online I might think I've seen all the art has to offer. But if I consider, I've watched 100 practitioners from videos spanning maybe 20 years, so how many wing chun practitioners have I not seen?

I've heard of single schools with 100 members on their books If not actively practicing.

And of all the practitioners, are the ones fighting the best around? Or just the ones with an interest in fighting. Are the hundred videos a complete competitive history of wing chun?

I started martial arts training in 98. I've been filmed once to my knowledge, after about 6 months of training. My competition days ended by 2000, not for any reason, just never entered again, and i learned sooo much more since that time.

 I have sparred with mmaists, kick boxers, Thai boxers, boxers, jkdists, jujutsuka karsteka wing chun exponents.... not one second of it on film. I imagine the relative lack of footage is true for most of us. 

But still people act like if there's no video it didn't happen. Like they can judge because of a few minutes of film. It's the definition of a logical fallacy.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> So what your saying is you can't find a flaw in my arguments but you are sticking to your opinions anyway.
> 
> I'd expect nothing less.
> .


Heh.

Is that how you read it?

QED.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> Heh.
> 
> Is that how you read it?
> 
> QED.


Well I didn't read any counterpoints to my argument, so yeh.

QED.


----------



## Charlemagne

There are really a number of factors here.  Specifically,

Style/Systems trained
Training method (how is a given style trained.  Is there contact, aliveness, technical precision, power, etc.)
Non-modifiable attributes/anthropometerics
Modifiable attributes (strength, conditioning, body mass, flexibility, motor control and learning, nutrition, etc.)
Cognitive (Sport psych, drive, tactical understanding, willingness to accept discomfort/pain, reasons for training/fighting, etc.)

All of these things are going to interact to varying degrees depending on the situation.

However, the bottom line that, in situations where some of the other variables have been removed, or at least made a bit more equal (to the extent that they really ever can be), there are some styles which consistently show the ability to perform under a high level of stress, and some which have little to no documented evidence of the same.  There are some people on here that don't like to hear that, and some that don't seem to want to accept it, but it is reality nonetheless.

In addition, there are some styles which have documented evidence working when some of the variables I noted above are not equal, particularly some of the modifiable attributes and anthropometrics (aka, size) and there are styles which have little to no documented evidence of the same.  Again, there are some people who don't want to hear that, but it is still the truth regardless of personal preference.

As I noted earlier, I do believe that the number of systems that will work is probably higher than often touted by those in the "aliveness" camp.  For example, I don't think it is reasonable to believe that Kyokushin is the _only_ form of Karate that can work well against a resisting opponent with full contact.  It simply happens to be the system where a charismatic leader decided to make hard contact a regular part of their training and testing, and put themselves out there for others to see doing that in ways that other forms of Karate have done less of, both against each other, and against persons from other styles with documented evidence of aliveness in their training and testing, such as MT, etc.

There are even more that probably have _aspects_ of what they do which will work.  The actual numbers and which systems those are is harder to get a handle on, simply because the the type of training and pressure testing necessary to figure that out is either not being done or not being disseminated.

These arguments about which systems might work or might not will not be settled in any meaningful way until persons in those systems without documented evidence of fighting ability against a resisting opponent start showing the desire and ability to pressure test their systems, are successful in doing so, and disseminate it.  If they are not willing to do that, then they ought to be prepared to accept that people are doing to doubt the effectiveness of what they do.  In other words, if you don't want to test your system in that way, don't get bent out of shape when people vocally doubt the effectiveness of what you do.  If you want to silence the critics, you know how to do it.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> this is precisely what you said, you not doing " something else" you learning and practising essential movement patterns
> 
> the idea that  fighting makes you good at fighting with out any focus on learning the correct movement is clearly nonsense, other wise every kid who had been beaten up a lot would automatically be a good fighter


Let me try again.   If you want to be a good golfer, you need to golf.   Other things help develop skills, but that will only get you so far.    If you never golf, you aren't a golfer.   If you never play on a soccer team, you aren't a soccer player.  

We use broad terms like fight or self defense, but those are terms that are hopelessly broad.  Think about it like rungs on a ladder.  Not a perfect analogy because things aren't as linear, but hopefully it will help illustrate the point I'm trying to make.  Each rung represents a skillset you have mastered.   As you learn skills, they prepare you to step up another rung.  If you never actually step to that rung, you will never progress beyond it.

So, you mention golfer.  If you have a driver and get really good at hitting the golf ball 300 yards straight down the range, that's an essential skill.  There are others.  So, if you never do anything more than drive the ball, you are not a great golfer.  You need to learn to hit all the clubs, and also develop a short game, including a lot of practice putting on the green.  Now, this might be as far as you go.  and if so, there is still a lot you don't know about golf, that you will only learn if you take another step up the ladder.  You have to schedule tee times and actually play many rounds of golf.  Only by playing golf will you really become adept at golf.  You will experience the joys of poor lies, hitting behind trees, lost balls, water hazards and hitting on hills.  And there is a stake.  You're keeping score, and every bad shot counts.  That's another rung.

n the case of martial arts or self defense skills, if you never actually fight, you're on some rung below that.  hopefully, if you train well, you're only one rung away and prepared to take a step up.  But you might be two or more rungs away and not really know it.  Hard to say.  But the most important thing to know is that you aren't on that rung.  So, like the golfer playing his first round of golf, when you take a step up you will only then understand that there is more to learn. 

As I said before, this idea is intuitively understood in every single thing we learn to do as human beings, except martial arts..  Well, not quite true.  People around here over the years have demonstrated that they see this gap clearly in how other people train.  The trouble I've observed is that they believe what they're doing is the exception.


----------



## Charlemagne

Steve said:


> So, you mention golfer.  If you have a driver and get really good at hitting the golf ball 300 yards straight down the range, that's an essential skill.  There are others.  So, if you never do anything more than drive the ball, you are not a great golfer.  You need to learn to hit all the clubs, and also develop a short game, including a lot of practice putting on the green.  Now, this might be as far as you go.  and if so, there is still a lot you don't know about golf, that you will only learn if you take another step up the ladder.  You have to schedule tee times and actually play many rounds of golf.  Only by playing golf will you really become adept at golf.  You will experience the joys of poor lies, hitting behind trees, lost balls, water hazards and hitting on hills.  And there is a stake.  You're keeping score, and every bad shot counts.  That's another rung.
> 
> In the case of martial arts or self defense skills, if you never actually fight, you're on some rung below that.  hopefully, if you train well, you're only one rung away and prepared to take a step up.  But you might be two or more rungs away and not really know it.  Hard to say.  But the most important thing to know is that you aren't on that rung.  So, like the golfer playing his first round of golf, when you take a step up you will only then understand that there is more to learn.
> 
> As I said before, this idea is intuitively understood in every single thing we learn to do as human beings, except martial arts..  Well, not quite true.  People around here over the years have demonstrated that they see this gap clearly in how other people train.  The trouble I've observed is that they believe what they're doing is the exception.



Well put.  Very well put.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Let me try again.   If you want to be a good golfer, you need to golf.   Other things help develop skills, but that will only get you so far.    If you never golf, you aren't a golfer.   If you never play on a soccer team, you aren't a soccer player.
> 
> We use broad terms like fight or self defense, but those are terms that are hopelessly broad.  Think about it like rungs on a ladder.  Not a perfect analogy because things aren't as linear, but hopefully it will help illustrate the point I'm trying to make.  Each rung represents a skillset you have mastered.   As you learn skills, they prepare you to step up another rung.  If you never actually step to that rung, you will never progress beyond it.
> 
> So, you mention golfer.  If you have a driver and get really good at hitting the golf ball 300 yards straight down the range, that's an essential skill.  There are others.  So, if you never do anything more than drive the ball, you are not a great golfer.  You need to learn to hit all the clubs, and also develop a short game, including a lot of practice putting on the green.  Now, this might be as far as you go.  and if so, there is still a lot you don't know about golf, that you will only learn if you take another step up the ladder.  You have to schedule tee times and actually play many rounds of golf.  Only by playing golf will you really become adept at golf.  You will experience the joys of poor lies, hitting behind trees, lost balls, water hazards and hitting on hills.  And there is a stake.  You're keeping score, and every bad shot counts.  That's another rung.
> 
> n the case of martial arts or self defense skills, if you never actually fight, you're on some rung below that.  hopefully, if you train well, you're only one rung away and prepared to take a step up.  But you might be two or more rungs away and not really know it.  Hard to say.  But the most important thing to know is that you aren't on that rung.  So, like the golfer playing his first round of golf, when you take a step up you will only then understand that there is more to learn.
> 
> As I said before, this idea is intuitively understood in every single thing we learn to do as human beings, except martial arts..  Well, not quite true.  People around here over the years have demonstrated that they see this gap clearly in how other people train.  The trouble I've observed is that they believe what they're doing is the exception.


yes, there are things there I could take issue with but let them roll on.

but ymin your statement that doing kata is " something else other than fighting," you have now changed your mind and agree that it ( or something like it where you practise movement patterns) is a prerequisite to developing,a skill.

if you had said that kata will only get you do far, I would have agreed, but you didn't, you said it was " something else" entirely " and that's plainly wrong, as it seems even you admit


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> There are really a number of factors here.  Specifically,
> 
> Style/Systems trained
> Training method (how is a given style trained.  Is there contact, aliveness, technical precision, power, etc.)
> Non-modifiable attributes/anthropometerics
> Modifiable attributes (strength, conditioning, body mass, flexibility, motor control and learning, nutrition, etc.)
> Cognitive (Sport psych, drive, tactical understanding, willingness to accept discomfort/pain, reasons for training/fighting, etc.)
> 
> All of these things are going to interact to varying degrees depending on the situation.
> 
> However, the bottom line that, in situations where some of the other variables have been removed, or at least made a bit more equal (to the extent that they really ever can be), there are some styles which consistently show the ability to perform under a high level of stress, and some which have little to no documented evidence of the same.  There are some people on here that don't like to hear that, and some that don't seem to want to accept it, but it is reality nonetheless.
> 
> In addition, there are some styles which have documented evidence working when some of the variables I noted above are not equal, particularly some of the modifiable attributes and anthropometrics (aka, size) and there are styles which have little to no documented evidence of the same.  Again, there are some people who don't want to hear that, but it is still the truth regardless of personal preference.
> 
> As I noted earlier, I do believe that the number of systems that will work is probably higher than often touted by those in the "aliveness" camp.  For example, I don't think it is reasonable to believe that Kyokushin is the _only_ form of Karate that can work well against a resisting opponent with full contact.  It simply happens to be the system where a charismatic leader decided to make hard contact a regular part of their training and testing, and put themselves out there for others to see doing that in ways that other forms of Karate have done less of, both against each other, and against persons from other styles with documented evidence of aliveness in their training and testing, such as MT, etc.
> 
> There are even more that probably have _aspects_ of what they do which will work.  The actual numbers and which systems those are is harder to get a handle on, simply because the the type of training and pressure testing necessary to figure that out is either not being done or not being disseminated.
> 
> These arguments about which systems might work or might not will not be settled in any meaningful way until persons in those systems without documented evidence of fighting ability against a resisting opponent start showing the desire and ability to pressure test their systems, are successful in doing so, and disseminate it.  If they are not willing to do that, then they ought to be prepared to accept that people are doing to doubt the effectiveness of what they do.


Actually, I am happy to accept that people might doubt the effectiveness of the system that I study. That is fine with me.  In the end it matters not, what some ignorant people on the internet might think, about something for which their only experience is YouTube.  Anyone who holds up YouTube as the ultimate source of information, needs to get a real education.


----------



## Charlemagne

Flying Crane said:


> Actually, I am happy to accept that people might doubt the effectiveness of the system that I study. That is fine with me.  In the end it matters not, what some ignorant people on the internet might think, about something for which their only experience is YouTube.  Anyone who holds up YouTube as the ultimate source of information, needs to get a real education.



YouTube is certainly not the ultimate source of information, and I did not suggest otherwise.  However, it _is_ a way to disseminate such information, and it is one that most people in the world have access to, which makes it a nice tool to use for such purposes. 

As for the rest, of course there are people who express doubts who are not of good will and who have no honest intent to seek the truth.  It would be appropriate to dismiss such people, or at least not pay them much attention. 

However, and this is important, ignorance is not stupidity and it does not imply bad will.  It is merely a lack of knowledge.  If people are seeking knowledge about something, and those who claim to have it are unwilling to provide it (or at least try), then the fault is not with the person who is ignorant.  

Finally, it should not be a surprise to anyone if a person who started out as sincerely interested in finding out the truth, after never being provided with the information that they sought, turns into a person who dismisses claims of effectiveness out of hand.


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> YouTube is certainly not the ultimate source of information, and I did not suggest otherwise.  However, it _is_ a way to disseminate such information, and it is one that most people in the world have access to, which makes it a nice tool to use for such purposes.
> 
> As for the rest, of course there are people who express doubts who are not of good will and who have no honest intent to seek the truth.  It would be appropriate to dismiss such people, or at least not pay them much attention.
> 
> However, and this is important, ignorance is not stupidity and it does not imply bad will.  It is merely a lack of knowledge.  If people are seeking knowledge about something, and those who claim to have it are unwilling to provide it (or at least try), then the fault is not with the person who is ignorant.
> 
> Finally, it should not be a surprise to anyone if a person who started out as sincerely interested in finding out the truth, after never being provided with the information that they sought, turns into a person who dismisses claims of effectiveness out of hand.


Ignorance is not stupidity, I agree.  However, when someone is offered an education by someone who has direct experience, and they disregard that education in favor of what they have or have not been able to find on YouTube, then that is either stupidity or it is deliberate malicious intent, which speaks volumes about that persons character and their real intentions.

YouTube is a tool, and it can be useful and educational.  But as I am fond of saying, a whole lot of what happens in the world is never filmed and posted on YouTube for people like you and I to gawk at.  The fact that it is not found on YouTube is a long way from meaning something does not exist.  And that tea kettle bit, absolutely does not apply in this context.  People who try to hold that up, also need to get a real education.


----------



## Charlemagne

Flying Crane said:


> Ignorance is not stupidity, I agree.  However, when someone is offered an education by someone who has direct experience, and they disregard that education in favor of what they have or have not been able to find on YouTube, then that is either stupidity or it is deliberate malicious intent, which speaks volumes about that persons character and their real intentions.


  If a person is offered empirical evidence of something and refuses it, then I would agree.  If what one is offering is anecdotal evidence then I would not.  I'm not accusing you of that, just clarifying the difference. 



> YouTube is a tool, and it can be useful and educational.  But as I am fond of saying, a whole lot of what happens in the world is never filmed and posted on YouTube for people like you and I to gawk at.  The fact that it is not found on YouTube is a long way from meaning something does not exist.


  Agreed.  However, it is an excellent way to get information to the masses.  In the absence of persons in a style without documented evidence of effectiveness just going around and fighting people one by one, if one is sincere about eliminating ignorance, then putting something out there showing effectiveness against a resisting opponent of another style for the masses is a good way to go.  YT could be _a_ way of accomplishing this, though it is not the only one.  The reality though is that I don't think that such evidence does exist most of the time, and way too many people in the martial arts world are still buying into the fantasy rather than the reality of MA training.  

Getting back to the premise of this thread, while I agree that there are many arts that do suffer primarily from bad training methodology, I believe there is good reason to doubt the claims that practitioners of many arts make in regards to the effectiveness of their particular system.  At the end of the day, the easiest way to dispel doubt is to provide direct evidence. If one is not willing to do that, don't cry foul when people doubt. 



> And that tea kettle bit, absolutely does not apply in this context.  People who try to hold that up, also need to get a real education.


  You're telling that to the wrong guy.  I never said anything about a tea kettle.


----------



## Martial D

Charlemagne said:


> You're telling that to the wrong guy.  I never said anything about a tea kettle.



Tea pot. 



			
				https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot said:
			
		

> *Russell's teapot* is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of _disproof_ to others.
> 
> Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
> 
> Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and has had influence in various fields and media.



Seems pretty relevant to this line of discussion from where I sit.


----------



## Charlemagne

Martial D said:


> Tea pot.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems pretty relevant to this line of discussion from where I sit.



I was not the person who introduced that idea, so I am unsure why he responded to me.  It's an easy mistake to make in a forum, so it's not really a big deal.  

However, I do agree with the concept in regards to burden of proof.


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> If a person is offered empirical evidence of something and refuses it, then I would agree.  If what one is offering is anecdotal evidence then I would not.  I'm not accusing you of that, just clarifying the difference.
> 
> Agreed.  However, it is an excellent way to get information to the masses.  In the absence of persons in a style without documented evidence of effectiveness just going around and fighting people one by one, if one is sincere about eliminating ignorance, then putting something out there showing effectiveness against a resisting opponent of another style for the masses is a good way to go.  YT could be _a_ way of accomplishing this, though it is not the only one.  The reality though is that I don't think that such evidence does exist most of the time, and way too many people in the martial arts world are still buying into the fantasy rather than the reality of MA training.  At the end of the day, the easiest way to dispel doubt is to provide direct evidence. If one is not willing to do that, don't cry foul when people doubt.
> 
> You're telling that to the wrong guy.  I never said anything about a tea kettle.


Yeah, the tea kettle comment wasn't aimed at you specifically, I just saw that it showed up in the discussion a few posts back and it seemed an appropriate place to comment on it.

Here is the thing tho.  A whole lot of people are not on a mission to show what they do, to the world at large, and don't have any deep interest in proving the worth of their system because, in a nutshell, it really does not matter, nothing needs to be proven.  I am in that camp.  So people like me will not make any videos because not only do we not care in the big picture, but we recognize that the subtleties that are meaningful within the system will be lost on the lay audience who does not have direct experience with it. Not only that, but I don't get into fights and I certainly do not make an attempt to film such things for popular viewing.  I actually do not find fights to be entertaining, either as a participant or a viewer.  Neither do I film training sessions because I'm more interested in simply training than showing the world how i train.  So...I and others of a like mindset simply do not do it.

However, when we see people who have no experience with what we do making negative claims, we are often happy to explain some things and offer some real information, based on some years of direct experience.  My apologies for not having a library of video to offer up as "proof" of what I may say.  But I have genuine experience and I have been very willing to share it.

And yet some people who, as I said, have zero direct experience with these things want to simply discount anything that contradicts their position that they have arrived at through ignorance and YouTube, continue to simply reject what anyone else has to say about it.

Here is a hint to such people:  it is ok to simply accept that some things lies outside of their direct experience, and perhaps some people who have that experience just might know what they are talking about.  But some think they are an expert on everything, especially those things in which they have no experience.

Honestly, it is a weird, even surreal, thing.


----------



## Martial D

Charlemagne said:


> I was not the person who introduced that idea, so I am unsure why he responded to me.  It's an easy mistake to make in a forum, so it's not really a big deal.
> 
> However, I do agree with the concept in regards to burden of proof.


I just wanted to clarify that for the gallery. I'm pretty sure that guy has me on ignore anyway.


----------



## Martial D

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, the tea kettle comment wasn't aimed at you specifically, I just saw that it showed up in the discussion a few posts back and it seemed an appropriate place to comment on it.
> 
> Here is the thing tho.  A whole lot of people are not on a mission to show what they do, to the world at large, and don't have any deep interest in proving the worth of their system because, in a nutshell, it really does not matter, nothing needs to be proven.  I am in that camp.  So people like me will not make any videos because not only do we not care in the big picture, but we recognize that the subtleties that are meaningful within the system will be lost on the lay audience who does not have direct experience with it. Not only that, but I don't get into fights and I certainly do not make an attempt to film such things for popular viewing.  I actually do not find fights to be entertaining, either as a participant or a viewer.  Neither do I film training sessions because I'm more interested in simply training than showing the world how i train.  So...I and others of a like mindset simply do not do it.
> 
> However, when we see people who have no experience with what we do making negative claims, we are often happy to explain some things and offer some real information, based on some years of direct experience.  My apologies for not having a library of video to offer up as "proof" of what I may say.  But I have genuine experience and I have been very willing to share it.
> 
> And yet some people who, as I said, have zero direct experience with these things want to simply discount anything that contradicts their position that they have arrived at through ignorance and YouTube, continue to simply reject what anyone else has to say about it.
> 
> Here is a hint to such people:  it is ok to simply accept that some things lies outside of their direct experience, and perhaps some people who have that experience just might know what they are talking about.  But some think they are an expert on everything, especially those things in which they have no experience.
> 
> Honestly, it is a weird, even surreal, thing.


How is it weird or surreal to expect people to support the claims they make with evidence?

Excuse me for not finding the bald assertions of strangers on the internet entirely convincing. We obviously live in completely different worlds.


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> How is it weird or surreal to expect people to support the claims they make with evidence?


That's rich coming from someone that refuses to accept any evidence that proves his opinion to be incorrect.


----------



## Martial D

Paul_D said:


> That's rich coming from someone that refuses to accept any evidence that proves his opinion to be incorrect.


You keep saying that as if it were true. The thing about evidence is that it can be different things to different people.

For instance, a video showing an aikido guy doing a certain technique that cuts to a street fight video of a guy doing something completely dissimilar does not to me, constitute evidence of effectiveness of the prior, where for you it does.


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> You keep saying that as if it were true. The thing about evidence is that it can be different things to different people.
> 
> For instance, a video showing an aikido guy doing a certain technique that cuts to a street fight video of a guy doing something completely dissimilar does not to me, constitute evidence of effectiveness of the prior, where for you it does.


That's because, in your words "I admittedly would not recognize Aikido in action the way someone that has trained in the art would,". The fact you cannot recognise it does not devalue the evidence.


----------



## Martial D

Paul_D said:


> Nice save, we'll just ignore all the evidence posted by numerous people showing people in wheelchairs can defend themselves.


I was going to let that one sit, but since you brought it up;

To you, a video of a guy in a chair with a karate gi on doing three moves to an 'opponent' that offers his arm and leaves it out there for said guy in chair to do said 3 moves constitutes evidence that disabled people can usually defend themselves against one or more able bodied attackers, for me it does not.

This is fun isn't it?


----------



## Charlemagne

Flying Crane said:


> Here is the thing tho.  A whole lot of people are not on a mission to show what they do, to the world at large, and don't have any deep interest in proving the worth of their system because, in a nutshell, it really does not matter, nothing needs to be proven.  I am in that camp.  So people like me will not make any videos because not only do we not care in the big picture, but we recognize that the subtleties that are meaningful within the system will be lost on the lay audience who does not have direct experience with it. Not only that, but I don't get into fights and I certainly do not make an attempt to film such things for popular viewing.  I actually do not find fights to be entertaining, either as a participant or a viewer.  Neither do I film training sessions because I'm more interested in simply training than showing the world how i train.  So...I and others of a like mindset simply do not do it.


  You cerainly have no obligation to put your training sessions on YouTube or to go around getting in fights.  Just don't get your panties in a bunch (metaphorically) if someone thinks what you do is BS and says so.  You claim not to care about such things.  So be it.  



> Honestly, it is a weird, even surreal, thing.



I don't think it is all that weird or surreal to hope that people might provide empirical evidence for claims that they make. I find it even less so for persons who are giving advice to others about the effectiveness of a particular martial arts system for things such as self protection.  In fact, I would argue that claims which cannot be validated of a particular martial arts system being effective for fighting/self-defense are unethical. 

If you study XYZ martial art for other reasons, such as health or social interaction, etc. then that is fine.  Others however might study them for differing reasons.  As such, I would argue that they are deserving of information that verifiable in nature.


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> I was going to let that one sit, but since you brought it up;
> 
> To you, a video of a guy in a chair with a karate gi on doing three moves to an 'opponent' that offers his arm and leaves it out there for said guy in chair to do said 3 moves constitutes evidence that disabled people can usually defend themselves against one or more able bodied attackers, for me it does not.
> 
> This is fun isn't it?


you've added the one or MORE bit recently, om not aware that any one has claimed that a,disable person can defend against multiple attackers any more than anyone else can


----------



## Martial D

Paul_D said:


> That's because, in your words "I admittedly would not recognize Aikido in action the way someone that has trained in the art would,". The fact you cannot recognise it does not devalue the evidence.


That being said, I can still recognize the difference between a wrist manipulation ending in the opponent flipping himself vs a guy charging someone and getting hip tossed.


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> You cerainly have no obligation to put your training sessions on YouTube or to go around getting in fights.  Just don't get your panties in a bunch (metaphorically) if someone thinks what you do is BS and says so.  You claim not to care about such things.  So be it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is all that weird or surreal to hope that people might provide empirical evidence for claims that they make. I find it even less so for persons who are giving advice to others about the effectiveness of a particular martial arts system for things such as self protection.  In fact, I would argue that claims which cannot be validated of a particular martial arts system being effective for fighting/self-defense are unethical.
> 
> If you study XYZ martial art for other reasons, such as health or social interaction, etc. then that is fine.  Others however might study them for differing reasons.  As such, I would argue that they are deserving of information that verifiable in nature.


Ok then.  I'm not interested in getting into a repetitive, circular dabate over it as has happened many times here in the past, so I'm done.  I've made my point and people can do with that what they will.


----------



## DaveB

Charlemagne said:


> There are really a number of factors here.  Specifically,
> 
> Style/Systems trained
> Training method (how is a given style trained.  Is there contact, aliveness, technical precision, power, etc.attributes/anthropometerics



All I will say is to reiterate the point that training and fighting style are independent. There is no "how a style trains" only how a school trains, unless your talking about really tiny styles with like 2 schools globally.



> If you want to silence the critics, you know how to do it.



And as I pointed out in one of the many wing chun threads, even when video evidence exists its not enough to silence those with a fixed idea of what effective looks like.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> I just wanted to clarify that for the gallery. I'm pretty sure that guy has me on ignore anyway.


If that's me I don't have you on ignore, I just wish you had more to show for 30 yrs training than snide remarks.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> If that's me I don't have you on ignore, I just wish you had more to show for 30 yrs training than snide remarks.



I am a 3rd degree master...in snide remarks....

...in the same way as you are 3rd Dan in selective-reading-jitsu.


----------



## DaveB

> I don't think it is all that weird or surreal to hope that people might provide empirical evidence for claims that they make. I find it even less so for persons who are giving advice to others about the effectiveness of a particular martial arts system for things such as self protection.  In fact, I would argue that claims which cannot be validated of a particular martial arts system being effective for fighting/self-defense are unethical.



But consider what you are asking. Many expressly train for self defence so to validate their claims they need to get attacked and defend themselves while on film??

Unless you advocate starting street fights it is just not feasible. And ring fights are zero evidence of self defence applicability so what else do you want?


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> I am a 3rd degree master...in snide remarks....
> 
> ...in the same way as you are 3rd Dan in selective-reading-jitsu.


Evidence this claim please.


----------



## DaveB

As an aside, here's an example of the kind of training one might do to make aikido work consistently.


----------



## Flying Crane

DaveB said:


> But consider what you are asking. Many expressly train for self defence so to validate their claims they need to get attacked and defend themselves while on film??
> 
> Unless you advocate starting street fights it is just not feasible. And ring fights are zero evidence of self defence applicability so what else do you want?


What seems to be overlooked is that when it comes right down to it, in the martial arts there is no evidence of anything beyond what someone did on some particular day.  What is on film simply documents one particular event.  That person's success, or another person's lack of success, does not indicate what some other person may or may not be capable of, whether or not it is captured on film.

I think that some people like to call for "evidence" in the belief that this somehow elevates their approach to martial training on a scientific level.  It does not.  The nature of the topic does not lend itself to such demands.  I think they honestly believe that it does.  But they are wrong.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> yes, there are things there I could take issue with but let them roll on.
> 
> but ymin your statement that doing kata is " something else other than fighting," you have now changed your mind and agree that it ( or something like it where you practise movement patterns) is a prerequisite to developing,a skill.
> 
> if you had said that kata will only get you do far, I would have agreed, but you didn't, you said it was " something else" entirely " and that's plainly wrong, as it seems even you admit


Well, hold on now.  It's hard to suss that out.  I think "prerequisite" is far too strong a word.  Many people who do not practice kata do just fine.  Kata is one activity among many that are used to teach.

But let's now look at the ladder analogy from the other direction.  If you never play a round of golf, and are happy and content going to the range with only your driver, you're doing something else.  There are guys who do this.  It's called Long Drive competitions.  They might be mediocre golfers or never play golf at all, but what they do is hit golf balls as far as they can.  Call it being a specialist.  Call it whatever you want, really.  But you aren't actually a golfer.  You are a guy who has stopped somewhere short of that, and started off in a new direction, with a different goal.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Well, hold on now.  It's hard to suss that out.  I think "prerequisite" is far too strong a word.  Many people who do not practice kata do just fine.  Kata is one activity among many that are used to teach.
> 
> But let's now look at the ladder analogy from the other direction.  If you never play a round of golf, and are happy and content going to the range with only your driver, you're doing something else.  There are guys who do this.  It's called Long Drive competitions.  They might be mediocre golfers or never play golf at all, but what they do is hit golf balls as far as they can.  Call it being a specialist.  Call it whatever you want, really.  But you aren't actually a golfer.  You are a guy who has stopped somewhere short of that, and started off in a new direction, with a different goal.


I said that movement training like kata was a prerequisite, for gaining movement patterns


----------



## Charlemagne

DaveB said:


> All I will say is to reiterate the point that training and fighting style are independent. There is no "how a style trains" only how a school trains, unless your talking about really tiny styles with like 2 schools globally.


  I disagree.  There are training methods that are specific to certain styles, and they tend to show up regardless of which school one is looking at.  

In addition, there are martial arts which tend to train with a great deal of aliveness and there are ones which don't.  There might be some differences there between individual schools or between organizations, but the trend is still there.  




> And as I pointed out in one of the many wing chun threads, even when video evidence exists its not enough to silence those with a fixed idea of what effective looks like.


  I am one of the people who are sincere about being interested in seeing WC performed against a resisting opponent who does not also train in that same system.  If you have video of that, I appreciate you pointing me in that direction.


----------



## Charlemagne

DaveB said:


> But consider what you are asking. Many expressly train for self defence so to validate their claims they need to get attacked and defend themselves while on film??
> 
> Unless you advocate starting street fights it is just not feasible. And ring fights are zero evidence of self defence applicability so what else do you want?



No.  I am suggesting that people spar, and not always against people who train exactly what they do.  

Pretty simple really.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> What seems to be overlooked is that when it comes right down to it, in the martial arts there is no evidence of anything beyond what someone did on some particular day.  What is on film simply documents one particular event.  That person's success, or another person's lack of success, does not indicate what some other person may or may not be capable of, whether or not it is captured on film.
> 
> I think that some people like to call for "evidence" in the belief that this somehow elevates their approach to martial training on a scientific level.  It does not.  The nature of the topic does not lend itself to such demands.  I think they honestly believe that it does.  But they are wrong.


Not true for all.  Only true for some.  We have ample evidence that cop training benefits cops, for example.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> I said that movement training like kata was a prerequisite, for gaining movement patterns


Prerequisite isn't accurate.  Prerequisite, by definition, is something that is required.


----------



## jobo

Charlemagne said:


> No.  I am suggesting that people spar, and not always against people who train exactly what they do.
> 
> Pretty simple really.


but that has the same unreality issues as drills, as a general rule you can't smash you sparing partner in the nose with your knee, nor do they take kindly to having their cheek bone broken or indeed biting of a finger, its just play fighting, much as you see 8 yo up doing


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Not true for all.  Only true for some.  We have ample evidence that cop training benefits cops, for example.


why do they keep getting killed then


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> I think your looking at it the wrong way, the styles that are the most effective are the ones that are the most demanding physically, therefore they have a built in physical advantage that is Impossible  to split from the style.



Not really. Fighting is physical. But we can separate effective fighting method with hard work.

Technically we are trying to achieve a technical proficiency and a physical standard to get the best of both worlds.

You have to split them to achieve the potential of both of them.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Actually, I am happy to accept that people might doubt the effectiveness of the system that I study. That is fine with me.  In the end it matters not, what some ignorant people on the internet might think, about something for which their only experience is YouTube.  Anyone who holds up YouTube as the ultimate source of information, needs to get a real education.



Evidence is better than people's say so. And martial arts has been skating by on peoples say so for too long.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Prerequisite isn't accurate.  Prerequisite, by definition, is something that is required.


well yea, footballer practise football movement golfer practise golf swings and fighter practice footwork and movement.

it is indeed a prerequisite of getting good at anything. I can't tell you how many hours I've dedicated to being good at pool


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Not really. Fighting is physical. But we can separate effective fighting method with hard work.
> 
> Technically we are trying to achieve a technical proficiency and a physical standard to get the best of both worlds.
> 
> You have to split them to achieve the potential of both of them.


but each is completely useless with out the other, how do you suggest you separate them


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of.


OK. You still need something that works. Before you go out and train hard with resistance. So if me and my friends put on some gloves and fight club in the back yard we will not have the same effect as someone who has learned to box. The difference is the style.



DaveB said:


> Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive.



This is a variable. But it does not change style as a variable.



DaveB said:


> Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight?



Because a lot of styles only do drills. And are lead by an instructor who only does drills. Their style does not understand fighting and what is required to make it work.



DaveB said:


> Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you.
> Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work.



Street fights have those variables. Sports fights have a progression.



DaveB said:


> Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas.
> 1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter.
> 
> 2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion or interruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights.


The abstract system can help or hinder before we worry about training we need a base that will work. A style is not just one person it is a trend. Some styles just do these base elements better.



DaveB said:


> I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge.
> 
> IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works.



The style in video games is fixed. You move in a predetermined way. If I put yoshi from Mario Kart in there. Their may be elements of that game that all the "get better" cannot be achieved.



DaveB said:


> And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one).
> I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work.



Yellow bamboo looks like the exception but it is not. Yellow bamboo relies on trained in compliance from the people doing the style. You see elements of that in a lot of styles. And that is where my definition of doesn't work fits in. So quite often the argument comes about that Krav will work better for an old frail person than MMA. But you need to know why that is. If it is because(exactly like yellow bamboo) everyone is making it work for you.

Then it doesn't really work.

The litmus test for if a style works is not a bunch of bendy logic about all styles working in some meta concept.

It is the style working against someone who does not want it to work.

And the reason for this very simple definition of working is why you want martial arts to work. Which is at some point a person may try to use force to do something you don't want them to do. And then it is your head on the block.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> but each is completely useless with out the other, how do you suggest you separate them



Train against bigger stronger guys is one method.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Train against bigger stronger guys is one method.


how does that seperate techneque from fitness, its impossible to know if something worked because of your techneque or your fitness


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> how does that seperate techneque from fitness, its impossible to know if something worked because of your techneque or your fitness



Well if they are fitter than you. Then it is probably your technique.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Well if they are fitter than you. Then it is probably your technique.


no, that's not a valid comparison, if you punch them and they fall over, was that due to you punch or your strength, ? There is no way of knowing if the punch would have worked if you hadn't done all those press ups


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> no, that's not a valid comparison, if you punch them and they fall over, was that due to you punch or your strength, ? There is no way of knowing if the punch would have worked if you hadn't done all those press ups



Sorry it is the best you can do. Other than just guessing.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> well yea, footballer practise football movement golfer practise golf swings and fighter practice footwork and movement.
> 
> it is indeed a prerequisite of getting good at anything. I can't tell you how many hours I've dedicated to being good at pool


By doing kata?


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> No.  I am suggesting that people spar, and not always against people who train exactly what they do.
> 
> Pretty simple really.


Do you know that people don't spar?  Do you have details on everyone's training schedule?


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> What seems to be overlooked is that when it comes right down to it, in the martial arts there is no evidence of anything beyond what someone did on some particular day.  What is on film simply documents one particular event.  That person's success, or another person's lack of success, does not indicate what some other person may or may not be capable of, whether or not it is captured on film.
> 
> I think that some people like to call for "evidence" in the belief that this somehow elevates their approach to martial training on a scientific level.  It does not.  The nature of the topic does not lend itself to such demands.  I think they honestly believe that it does.  But they are wrong.



You don't think training in a system that suggests there is no need for evidence. Just a little bit dodgy?


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> By doing kata?


the pool equivalent of kata, which is just knocking balls around a table with no oppoinent in sight
that's one very good way of I training movement patterns, im not saying that kata is the only way, but that your previous statement that it has no benefit at all was wide of the mark


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> the pool equivalent of kata, which is just knocking balls around a table with no oppoinent in sight
> that's one very good way of I training movement patterns, im not saying that kata is the only way, but that your previous statement that it has no benefit at all was wide of the mark


Knocking balls around a table is pool kata?  I don't know, man.   You said kata is a prerequisite activity.   It's not.   Kata refers to something very specific.   Trying to appropriate the term doesn't work.


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> If a person is offered empirical evidence of something and refuses it, then I would agree.  If what one is offering is anecdotal evidence then I would not.  I'm not accusing you of that, just clarifying the difference.
> 
> Agreed.  However, it is an excellent way to get information to the masses.  In the absence of persons in a style without documented evidence of effectiveness just going around and fighting people one by one, if one is sincere about eliminating ignorance, then putting something out there showing effectiveness against a resisting opponent of another style for the masses is a good way to go.  YT could be _a_ way of accomplishing this, though it is not the only one.  The reality though is that I don't think that such evidence does exist most of the time, and way too many people in the martial arts world are still buying into the fantasy rather than the reality of MA training.
> 
> Getting back to the premise of this thread, while I agree that there are many arts that do suffer primarily from bad training methodology, I believe there is good reason to doubt the claims that practitioners of many arts make in regards to the effectiveness of their particular system.  At the end of the day, the easiest way to dispel doubt is to provide direct evidence. If one is not willing to do that, don't cry foul when people doubt.
> 
> You're telling that to the wrong guy.  I never said anything about a tea kettle.


So apparently I'm giving this a second round....

Here is an analogy.  I want to paint my house.  I'm talking to you about my need to paint my house, and I'm telling you that Behr paints are crap, I know this to be true, never use Behr.

You ask me how I know this, because you painted your house using Behr.  I tell you, well no I've never used Behr but the guy down the street from me did, and it didn't last a year before it was all peeling off and looked like crap.  In fact, it looked like crap from day one, it never seemed to cover well and didn't stick.

So you tell me, well now there is a proper way to go about painting your house, and if you do it right, then any of a number of brands of paint work quite well, including Behr.  First, you've got to prepare the surface, which means scraping away any loose old paint, washing off the dirt and grime, filling holes and gaps with putty, and using a primer coat where necessary.  If you do that prep work properly, then any paint, including Behr, will work really well.  And also, there are different formulations of paint, some are higher quality than others and are meant to last longer, and others are formulated for indoor and will not stand up to the weather and are not meant to be used on the outside of a house.  So if you choose the right paint and do the prep work, it'll come out just fine.  Sure, it's hard work at times, but worth it.

I ask you, how do you know this?  Because I saw my neighbors house look like crap after he painted it.  He spent a whole three hours painting it.

You tell me that you painted your house, both inside and out, doing the prep work and using appropriate Behr paints, and now twelve years later it still looks great.  And by the way, in the last twenty years you've helped family and friends paint their houses, eight of them to be exact, using Behr paints, doing the prep work and choosing appropriate formulations, and they all looked great for at least a decade. 

You suggest that maybe my neighbor didn't choose the proper paint formula or didn't do the proper prep work.  I mean three whole hours for him to paint the house seems like a rush job, while you spent two weeks doing yours.  

And I tell you, well I don't know anything about all that, I still say that Behr paints suck.  I'll go with something else, because I just know that Behr sucks.

So I ask you this: does that anecdotal evidence have any value?  Or do I need to see something on YouTube showing the aging process of paint, before I can trust Behr?

There are other reasons I might choose another brand.  Price might be one, or a certain shade of green that I just love, but isn't available with Behr.  So sure, there are good reasons to go elsewhere.  But seriously, is this anecdotal evidence that should carry no weight, should be discarded as having no value?


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Knocking balls around a table is pool kata?  I don't know, man.   You said kata is a prerequisite activity.   It's not.   Kata refers to something very specific.   Trying to appropriate the term doesn't work.


its not very specific, its a specific name given to the ma version of the same activerty that is used as a training method in a lot of sports.
you can take it a step further than movement patterns and use it as visualizations which is used by sports phycologists' to improve real time performance


----------



## Charlemagne

Flying Crane said:


> Do you know that people don't spar?  Do you have details on everyone's training schedule?



For someone who says he doesn't care what people think, you seem to care quite a bit.  

And no, I don't, but if that is happening on a regular basis against persons from other styles, it would be super simple to provide evidence.


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> For someone who says he doesn't care what people think, you seem to care quite a bit.
> 
> And no, I don't, but if that is happening on a regular basis against persons from other styles, it would be super simple to provide evidence.


Why would they need to prove anything to you?

And do you object to me participating in this discussion?  It's not even a thread that you initiated.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Why would they need to prove anything to you?
> 
> And do you object to me participating in this discussion?  It's not even a thread that you initiated.



Even you paint analogy had evidence.

Without the evidence of the paint working. How does your analogy  stand up?

*You tell me that you painted your house, both inside and out, doing the prep work and using appropriate Behr paints, and now twelve years later it still looks great. And by the way, in the last twenty years you've helped family and friends paint their houses, eight of them to be exact, using Behr paints, doing the prep work and choosing appropriate formulations, and they all looked great for at least a decade.
*
You could go out and varify this. If I asked were these houses were. And you responded with. "I don't have to tell you"

Then you have issues.


----------



## jobo

edit


----------



## jobo

Charlemagne said:


> For someone who says he doesn't care what people think, you seem to care quite a bit.
> 
> And no, I don't, but if that is happening on a regular basis against persons from other styles, it would be super simple to provide evidence.


ok then you provided evidence that's what you do, if its so easy


----------



## Charlemagne

Flying Crane said:


> Why would they need to prove anything to you?
> 
> And do you object to me participating in this discussion?  It's not even a thread that you initiated.



I don't object at all.  I just find it odd that you claim not to care at all what people think, but then continue to argue your points after claiming you were done only a short time ago.  Those things don't really equate.  

As for the rest, they don't.  However, as I noted before, if people doubt but you are not willing to provide evidence to set their doubts to rest, then don't be surprised, or bothered, when they don't believe you.


----------



## Charlemagne

jobo said:


> ok then you provided evidence that's what you do, if its so easy



Evidence for the willingness of our system to go against others has been in the public forum for a very long time. 

Pekiti Tirisa Kali





You could also take a look at the early Dog Brothers videos, as most of those guys were either Pekiti Tirsia or Lacoste-Inosanto kali guys.  

Gracie Jiu-Jitsu


----------



## jobo

Charlemagne said:


> Evidence for the effectiveness of the systems I train in against others has been in the public forum for a very long time.
> 
> Pekiti Tirisa Kali
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie Jiu-Jitsu


so are you claiming that one of those fighter is you?


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> I don't object at all.  I just find it odd that you claim not to care at all what people think, but then continue to argue your points after claiming you were done only a short time ago.  Those things don't really equate.
> 
> As for the rest, they don't.  However, as I noted before, if people doubt but you are not willing to provide evidence to set their doubts to rest, then don't be surprised, or bothered, when they don't believe you.


I don't understand why you care if I come or go in this discussion.  I've said that I have been willing to educate people on things in which I have experience and they do not.  That is relevant to this thread.  So if I choose to take part in this or other discussions, why would you find it unusual?

So....what about the paint story?  Should I disregard your advice?

Likewise, should I disregard outright anything you say about your training, simply because I haven't seen it for myself?


----------



## Charlemagne

jobo said:


> so are you claiming that one of those fighter is you?



No, I am showing the systems I train in, as that is the question at hand.  The point being of the conversation that Flying Crane and myself have been having all day is that some systems have documented evidence of being willing to mix it up and some systems do not.


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> Evidence for the willingness of our system to go against others has been in the public forum for a very long time.
> 
> Pekiti Tirisa Kali
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could also take a look at the early Dog Brothers videos, as most of those guys were either Pekiti Tirsia or Lacoste-Inosanto kali guys.
> 
> Gracie Jiu-Jitsu


Why would you feel a need to prove this to me?  I am not asking for proof.  I have no interest in even watching the videos.  I have no reason to doubt the effectiveness of your method.  I have no experience with it, so I would be an ignorant fool to declare that I believe it does not work.  You train it, so if you claim it is valuable training and it works well for you, why would I ever argue with you?  I have no base from which to challenge your claim.


----------



## jobo

Charlemagne said:


> No, I am showing the systems I train in, as that is the question at hand.  The point being of the conversation that Flying Crane and myself have been having all day is that some systems have documented evidence of being willing to mix it up and some systems do not.


no the question was, can you prove that's what YOU DO, any one can post random vids from the 1970s, it might be a bit more convincing if it wasn't nearly 40 years old


----------



## Charlemagne

Flying Crane said:


> I don't understand why you care if I come or go in this discussion.  I've said that I have been willing to educate people on things in which I have experience and they do not.  That is relevant to this thread.  So if I choose to take part in this or other discussions, why would you find it unusual?


  I only find it unusual because it was you that said you didn't care what people though and then it was you who said you were done talking about it. I thought we had been having a cordial discussion prior to that, despite the fact that we obviously disagree.



> So....what about the paint story?  Should I disregard your advice?


In your example, it would be very easy to demonstrate the effectiveness when the paint was applied property as compared to when it was not.  Behr paint is used by millions of people each year.   



> Likewise, should I disregard outright anything you say about your training, simply because I haven't seen it for myself?


 If there were not easy to find examples of how what I do trains, then it would be logical for you to ask for evidence.  If I was unwilling to provide it, it would be reasonable for you to doubt.  As stands, there are many easy-to-find examples.


----------



## Charlemagne

Flying Crane said:


> Why would you feel a need to prove this to me?  I am not asking for proof.  I have no interest in even watching the videos.  I have no reason to doubt the effectiveness of your method.  I have no experience with it, so I would be an ignorant fool to declare that I believe it does not work.  You train it, so if you claim it is valuable training and it works well for you, why would I ever argue with you?  I have no base from which to challenge your claim.



I wasn't responding to you with those videos.  Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## Charlemagne

jobo said:


> no the question was, can you prove that's what YOU DO, any one can post random vids from the 1970s



Sweet.  I'll wait for those random videos from the 1970's showing the willingness of all of those martial arts who have, here to date, never been able to find such evidence of their willingness to train full contact, particularly against persons from other systems. 

As for the rest, I will see about trying to record some of our live sparing the next time we do it.  I have shard such things in the past on other martial arts forums, mostly in the form of pictures of my bruises from live stick sparring. 







At the end of the day, unless given solid reason, I'll stick with my original claim that there some systems which have documented evidence of training against resisting opponents and those who do not.  If someone is making a claim about effectiveness of their system, they should not be surprised when people ask for such things.  If they cannot show examples of their system being used in that manner, they should not be surprised if people doubt.


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> I only find it unusual because it was you that said you didn't care what people though and then it was you who said you were done talking about it. I thought we had been having a cordial discussion prior to that, despite the fact that we obviously disagree.
> 
> 
> In your example, it would be very easy to demonstrate the effectiveness when the paint was applied property as compared to when it was not.  Behr paint is used by millions of people each year.
> 
> If there were no easy to find examples of how what I do trains then it would be logical for you to ask for evidence.  If I was unwilling to provide it, it would be reasonable for you to doubt.  As stands, there are many easy to find examples.


In the end, I don't care what someone thinks of my training.  But this is a discussion forum, so I engage in discussion.  If someone chooses to discard the education that i offer, on a topic in which they have no experience and I do, that is their loss and they choose deliberate ignorance.  Sure, it is mildly annoying to me, but it is their loss.  But I am here to discuss, and I discuss where and when i choose.  I feel like you are trying to tell me to go away.  Are you?

Regarding the paint, are you saying that I need to see the paint applied properly and then sit and watch it weather for a dozen years before I might be able to trust your anecdotal advice?  Seriously, why can't i trust your advice?

If someone suggests a book that they think you might like, do you research the author's life before you read it?  Or can you trust that your friend liked it and perhaps you will to?


----------



## jobo

Charlemagne said:


> Sweet.  I'll wait for those random videos from the 1970's showing the willingness of all of those martial arts who have, here to date, never been able to find such evidence of their willingness to train full contact, particularly against persons from other systems.
> 
> As for the rest, I will see about trying to record some of our live sparing the next time we do it.  I have shard such things in the past on other martial arts forums, mostly in the form of pictures of my bruises from live stick sparring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, unless given solid reason, I'll stick with my original claim that there some systems which have documented evidence of training against resisting opponents and those who do not.  If someone is making a claim about effectiveness of their system, they should not be surprised when people ask for such things.  If they cannot show examples of their system being used in that manner, they should not be surprised if people doubt.


ok so all the evidence you can provide that you fight other styles is a picture of a  bloke with a red mark.
really after baiting others about evidence that's all you have


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> I wasn't responding to you with those videos.  Sorry for any confusion.


Ok, but I hold to my statements.  If you say your training is good, I trust your word.  I have no reason to doubt you.  It may not be the right thing for me, but I have no reason to doubt your experience or your judgement on it, for yourself.


----------



## Charlemagne

Flying Crane said:


> In the end, I don't care what someone thinks of my training.  But this is a discussion forum, so I engage in discussion.  If someone chooses to discard the education that i offer, on a topic in which they have no experience and I do, that is their loss and they choose deliberate ignorance.  Sure, it is mildly annoying to me, but it is their loss.  But I am here to discuss, and I discuss where and when i choose.  I feel like you are trying to tell me to go away.  Are you?


 Not in the slightest.  



> Regarding the paint, are you saying that I need to see the paint applied properly and then sit and watch it weather for a dozen years before I might be able to trust your anecdotal advice?  Seriously, why can't i trust your advice?


  I really don't think that's a good comparison, but OK. 



> If someone suggests a book that they think you might like, do you research the author's life before you read it?  Or can you trust that your friend liked it and perhaps you will to?


  Because if someone reads a book that they don't end up liking they are only out a few bucks and some time.  If someone invests years into training a martial art and it fails them when put to the test, they are likely out much more.  Liking a book is a matter of taste and personal preference.  Whether or not a martial art has verifiable evidence of effectiveness against other systems is a matter of objective reality.


----------



## Charlemagne

jobo said:


> ok so all the evidence you can provide that you fight other styles is a picture of a fat bloke with a red mark.
> really after baiting others about evidence that's all you have



No, I have many videos of the styles I train being used against persons from other systems.  And a picture of a fat bloke with a red mark. 

And, in case you are confused, I don't expect every single personal martial artist to put out videos of what they do.  But, I don't think it is unreasonable to think that a particular martial arts system would have evidence of what they do.


----------



## jobo

Charlemagne said:


> No, I have many videos of the styles I train being used against persons from other systems.  And a picture of a fat bloke with a red mark.
> 
> And, in case you are confused, I don't expect every single personal martial artist to put out videos of what they do.  But, I don't think it is unreasonable to think that a particular martial arts system would have evidence of what they do.



you lead me to believe that YOU train,against other styles, I've simply asked you to verify that, . Pictures of someone from a style you claim you do fighting doesn't really come close to that. You told us it was easy to prove


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> Not in the slightest.
> 
> I really don't think that's a good comparison, but OK.
> 
> Because if someone reads a book that they don't end up liking they are only out a few bucks and some time.  If someone invests years into training a martial art and it fails them when put to the test, they are likely out much more.  Liking a book is a matter of taste and personal preference.  Whether or not a martial art has verifiable evidence of effectiveness against other systems is a matter of objective reality.


I'm not telling you that you need to train my system.  I only claim that I find my training useful and effective for me.  If you speak up and say that what I do is no good, I am likely to tell you that, well I actually have experience with this method and I find it useful.  Then you tell me that I have to prove it.  Well no I don't, you don't want to train it anyway and I'm not trying to convert you, so why would I need to prove it to you?

Why can't I take your advice on paint at face value?  I am willing to believe you, why do you tell me I cannot believe you?


----------



## Steve

Charlemagne said:


> No, I have many videos of the styles I train being used against persons from other systems.  And a picture of a fat bloke with a red mark.
> 
> And, in case you are confused, I don't expect every single personal martial artist to put out videos of what they do.  But, I don't think it is unreasonable to think that a particular martial arts system would have evidence of what they do.


You have the patience of a saint.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> OK. You still need something that works. Before you go out and train hard with resistance. So if me and my friends put on some gloves and fight club in the back yard we will not have the same effect as someone who has learned to box. The difference is the style.



1. A backyard fight club isn't a fighting style. The fighting style is indeed the something that works and I already stipulated that this discussion is based on those that use striking and grappling as combat tools. Not psychic powers like yellow bamboo.

2. Training hard with resistance is only one part of training properly. Look at the aikido training video: not yet fighting hard but doing drills that develop skills that are necessary to fight.

If your training develops core skills like balanced movement, evasion, landing blows and building combinations then the fighting style has what it needs to do what it does.



> This is a variable. But it does not change style as a variable.



The particulars of the style are a negligible impact on the importance of core skills.

I know it's fun to bash styles but is it really so hard to see that ones ability to time a punch is far more important than what that punch looks like???



> Because a lot of styles only do drills. And are lead by an instructor who only does drills. Their style does not understand fighting and what is required to make it work.



Show me the style capable of cognition and I will show you a new and undocumented life form worth more than all the champions belts combined.

I'm saying styles don't think. They don't understand things they don't move and do drills. People do those things and people can choose to do different ones. An instructor may not understand fighting, but it only takes one that does to make the style work.

That knowledge gap is not style specific. A few days ago I watched videos of pro boxers who tried to fight in mma. They got destroyed. Boxers don't understand fighting, they understand the "game" of boxing. Does that mean boxing can't work? Or maybe was it the boxers training that was lacking for the new environment?



> Street fights have those variables. Sports fights have a progression.


So no sport fighter ever got a lucky hit?
No sport fighter was ever just more talented or had better genes?



> The abstract system can help or hinder before we worry about training we need a base that will work. A style is not just one person it is a trend. Some styles just do these base elements better.


It's the training that makes it work not the other way around. To even do a style you need to have trained in it first. You can't just go into a fight thinking about Greco-Roman wrestling and expect to use it if you never trained a day in it.

Training is the only variable that matters.



> The style in video games is fixed. You move in a predetermined way. If I put yoshi from Mario Kart in there. Their may be elements of that game that all the "get better" cannot be achieved.



What you've just argued is that not all fighting styles are suitable for sports competitions as they don't all move in a way conducive to the rules of the sport. 

I'm pretty sure you and those like you normally call this a b.s. argument because it let's people of the hook for not winning fights.



> Yellow bamboo looks like the exception but it is not. Yellow bamboo relies on trained in compliance from the people doing the style. You see elements of that in a lot of styles. And that is where my definition of doesn't work fits in. So quite often the argument comes about that Krav will work better for an old frail person than MMA. But you need to know why that is. If it is because(exactly like yellow bamboo) everyone is making it work for you.
> 
> Then it doesn't really work.
> 
> The litmus test for if a style works is not a bunch of bendy logic about all styles working in some meta concept.
> 
> It is the style working against someone who does not want it to work.
> 
> And the reason for this very simple definition of working is why you want martial arts to work. Which is at some point a person may try to use force to do something you don't want them to do. And then it is your head on the block.



No style has trained in compliance as a component of the style. It occurs as a corruption of the training environment. It's a pitfall, not an integral element. It also doesn't fall into the definition of "trained properly", does it?

Did you even read the opening post? I mean I know you didn't originally or you'd never have posted about yellow bamboo, but still?

Your litmus test is the same as my litmus test.  I just don't limit the idea of working to winning because that would discount the abilities of the opposition which would be stupid. 

The only point I'm really making is that it's not the set of guidelines that blocks andvthrows punches, it is the person. How well that person does that is based on how well trained they are.

This is not rocket science. There is nothing bendy about this logic. You literally said that a set of ideas about moving during a fight is capable of cognitive understanding but you call my logic bendy?

The fact is you want to make it about the style when the thing doing the fighting is a human being. A human being chooses when to punch, when to dodge etc. They do this based on how well they are trained.

Can we argue that some styles rely too heavily on traditional methods that are ineffective. Of course, but that doesn't make the style it's self flawed. It doesn't mean people can't change the way they train to get better results.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Why can't I take your advice on paint at face value? I am willing to believe you, why do you tell me I cannot believe you?



There are two ways people look at this. One is the expectation that if you don't call on my BS I won't call you on yours.

And the other is the expectation that I will be called on my BS and i will call yours.

When you remove honest feedback from your training. You system stops working.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> When you remove honest feedback from your training. You system stops working.


At last we agree on something.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> 1. A backyard fight club isn't a fighting style. The fighting style is indeed the something that works and I already stipulated that this discussion is based on those that use striking and grappling as combat tools. Not psychic powers like yellow bamboo.
> 
> 2. Training hard with resistance is only one part of training properly. Look at the aikido training video: not yet fighting hard but doing drills that develop skills that are necessary to fight.
> 
> If your training develops core skills like balanced movement, evasion, landing blows and building combinations then the fighting style has what it needs to do what it does.
> 
> 
> 
> The particulars of the style are a negligible impact on the importance of core skills.
> 
> I know it's fun to bash styles but is it really so hard to see that ones ability to time a punch is far more important than what that punch looks like???
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the style capable of cognition and I will show you a new and undocumented life form worth more than all the champions belts combined.
> 
> I'm saying styles don't think. They don't understand things they don't move and do drills. People do those things and people can choose to do different ones. An instructor may not understand fighting, but it only takes one that does to make the style work.
> 
> That knowledge gap is not style specific. A few days ago I watched videos of pro boxers who tried to fight in mma. They got destroyed. Boxers don't understand fighting, they understand the "game" of boxing. Does that mean boxing can't work? Or maybe was it the boxers training that was lacking for the new environment?
> 
> 
> So no sport fighter ever got a lucky hit?
> No sport fighter was ever just more talented or had better genes?
> 
> 
> It's the training that makes it work not the other way around. To even do a style you need to have trained in it first. You can't just go into a fight thinking about Greco-Roman wrestling and expect to use it if you never trained a day in it.
> 
> Training is the only variable that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> What you've just argued is that not all fighting styles are suitable for sports competitions as they don't all move in a way conducive to the rules of the sport.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you and those like you normally call this a b.s. argument because it let's people of the hook for not winning fights.
> 
> 
> 
> No style has trained in compliance as a component of the style. It occurs as a corruption of the training environment. It's a pitfall, not an integral element. It also doesn't fall into the definition of "trained properly", does it?
> 
> Did you even read the opening post? I mean I know you didn't originally or you'd never have posted about yellow bamboo, but still?
> 
> Your litmus test is the same as my litmus test.  I just don't limit the idea of working to winning because that would discount the abilities of the opposition which would be stupid.
> 
> The only point I'm really making is that it's not the set of guidelines that blocks andvthrows punches, it is the person. How well that person does that is based on how well trained they are.
> 
> This is not rocket science. There is nothing bendy about this logic. You literally said that a set of ideas about moving during a fight is capable of cognitive understanding but you call my logic bendy?
> 
> The fact is you want to make it about the style when the thing doing the fighting is a human being. A human being chooses when to punch, when to dodge etc. They do this based on how well they are trained.
> 
> Can we argue that some styles rely too heavily on traditional methods that are ineffective. Of course, but that doesn't make the style it's self flawed. It doesn't mean people can't change the way they train to get better results.



So little Johnny gets caught for stealing and is told what he did was wrong.

His excuse is "But what about all the other kids who steal?"

Just because the individual and the training and the circumstance plays a role. Does not discount that the style plays a role as well.

There is a reason boxers tend to wrestle worse than wrestlers.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> So little Johnny gets caught for stealing and is told what he did was wrong.
> 
> His excuse is "But what about all the other kids who steal?"
> 
> Just because the individual and the training and the circumstance plays a role. Does not discount that the style plays a role as well.
> 
> There is a reason boxers tend to wrestle worse than wrestlers.



I have no clue what you are talking about?

I got the "Style plays a role" bit.

When considered in the context of the opponent style can determine how easy or difficult victory is.

Style is your strategy and your tactics and your mechanics. For traditional aikido the strategy is draw the attack and neutralise, the tactic is turn the attack energy against itself by x technique and I presume their mechanics are around proper posture but I don't know.

Is that a more difficult road than punch in the face? Sure. But what determines if it works or fails? The only answer to that is the training.


----------



## Charlemagne

Steve said:


> You have the patience of a saint.



Ha!  Thanks for that.  He's going on my ignore list though.  He does the same thing in every thread that I have seen so far.


----------



## Charlemagne

Flying Crane said:


> Why can't I take your advice on paint at face value?  I am willing to believe you, why do you tell me I cannot believe you?



Because this is an anonymous internet forum where you don't know who I really am, what my real experience may or may not be, and if I even train in the systems that I claim to train in.  The same goes for you.  I have no idea who you really are, what you really do, and whether or not you know what the heck you are talking about.  The reality is:

There are way too many posers in the martial arts world
Way too many people that are still buying into the 1970-80's fantasy of what is and is not going to work in real life
Way too many people are training systems which have never been validated and which have way more show than go in them
Way too many people that give flawed recommendations as a result of the above   

You seem like a decent sort, and I do try to presume good will on the part of other people that I interact with, but sadly, that is not always rewarded.  And, since we are talking about martial arts, where there is potential for harm if someone is full of it, or if the system is ineffective, it is prudent to seek out confirmation of the usefulness of a particular style or system before buying in. 

If you cannot see the logic of what I wrote above, I'm honestly not sure we have much left to discuss on this topic.


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> Because this is an anonymous internet forum where you don't know who I really am, what my real experience may or may not be, and if I even train in the systems that I claim to train in.  The same goes for you.  I have no idea who you really are, what you really do, and whether or not you know what the heck you are talking about.  The reality is:
> 
> There are way too many posers in the martial arts world
> Way too many people that are still buying into the 1970-80's fantasy of what is and is not going to work in real life
> Way too many people are training systems which have never been validated and which have way more show than go in them
> Way too many people that give flawed recommendations as a result of the above
> 
> You seem like a decent sort, and I do try to presume good will on the part of other people that I interact with, but sadly, that is not always rewarded.  And, since we are talking about martial arts, where there is potential for harm if someone is full of it, or if the system is ineffective, it is prudent to seek out confirmation of the usefulness of a particular style or system before buying in.
> 
> If you cannot see the logic of what I wrote above, I'm honestly not sure we have much left to discuss on this topic.


So wait a minute here.  If you have no experience with a system beyond what you have seen on YouTube, and yet you have formulated a negative opinion of that system, you are unable to consider the input of a person who has experience with that system?  Someone who takes the time to explain some of the background and concepts and methods, to help you understand what you may be seeing on YT, all the while acknowledging that yes, there are some pretty poor examples on YT.  But you feel their input means NOTHING?  Really?

If you said "XYZ system sucks, I've seen nothing good on YT for that", and I were to chime in and say, "well wait a minute, I've been training in XYZ system for a few years now, and I live on the bad side of town and I've successfully used my training in XYZ 14 times to defend myself" do you assume I am lying to you? Do you discard my testimony as worthless anecdotal evidence, and therefor either the encounters I have described didn't happen, or worse yet I actually got beat up 14 times?  Is that your position based on the fact that you didn't like what you saw on YT?  

Are you unable to comprehend that even tho you may not understand something, may have no experience with something, may actually dislike something, that there are other people who find it quite useful and have successfully used it?

Can you understand that?  Can you accept that possibility, that something you may dislike, can be useful to others?

Because I will be honest with you here:  what you are describing is a level of misinformed distrust that borders on paranoia.

If you tell me you've painted nine houses in the last twenty years, all using Behr paints, and they all came out beautifully, and furthermore you describe to me the proper preparation to do the job right, because you can tell that I've never done this before and I may not understand what is required to do the job right, I don't assume you are lying to me.  Neither do I feel the need to order the MSDS for the paint formulas or do an extensive survey of all painting done in my city to compare who used what brand and how well the results came out, before I am willing to concede that maybe you know a little bit about this thing with which I have no experience.

I'll accept your word on it, as long as I don't have some solid reason to suspect you are trying to mislead me.

I stick to my earlier statement: this is weird and surreal.


----------



## Martial D

Flying Crane said:


> So wait a minute here.  If you have no experience with a system beyond what you have seen on YouTube, and yet you have formulated a negative opinion of that system, you are unable to consider the input of a person who has experience with that system?  Someone who takes the time to explain some of the background and concepts and methods, to help you understand what you may be seeing on YT, all the while acknowledging that yes, there are some pretty poor examples on YT.  But you feel their input means NOTHING?  Really?
> 
> If you said "XYZ system sucks, I've seen nothing good on YT for that", and I were to chime in and say, "well wait a minute, I've been training in XYZ system for a few years now, and I live on the bad side of town and I've successfully used my training in XYZ 14 times to defend myself" do you assume I am lying to you? Do you discard my testimony as worthless anecdotal evidence, and therefor either the encounters I have described didn't happen, or worse yet I actually got beat up 14 times?  Is that your position based on the fact that you didn't like what you saw on YT?
> 
> Are you unable to comprehend that even tho you may not understand something, may have no experience with something, may actually dislike something, that there are other people who find it quite useful and have successfully used it?
> 
> Can you understand that?  Can you accept that possibility, that something you may dislike, can be useful to others?
> 
> Because I will be honest with you here:  what you are describing is a level of misinformed distrust that borders on paranoia.
> 
> If you tell me you've painted nine houses in the last twenty years, all using Behr paints, and they all came out beautifully, and furthermore you describe to me the proper preparation to do the job right, because you can tell that I've never done this before and I may not understand what is required to do the job right, I don't assume you are lying to me.  Neither do I feel the need to order the MSDS for the paint formulas or do an extensive survey of all painting done in my city to compare who used what brand and how well the results came out, before I am willing to concede that maybe you know a little bit about this thing with which I have no experience.
> 
> I'll accept your word on it, as long as I don't have some solid reason to suspect you are trying to mislead me.
> 
> I stick to my earlier statement: this is weird and surreal.


Person a says, I train X system, and it's very effective for SD and fighting.

Person b says, I've sparred with many people that do x system and they all sucked at it, and I've further witnessed , either in person or on film, a good deal more people doing X system and they also sucked at it. Do you have evidence that there is a type of X system that works in actual sparring or combat?

Person A says I find it surreal that you would ask that, why don't you just believe me? Oh and I'll never provide that evidence btw because I shouldn't have to.

Person b backs away slowly....


----------



## DaveB

Charlemagne said:


> ...  And, since we are talking about martial arts, where there is potential for harm if someone is full of it, or if the system is ineffective, it is prudent to seek out confirmation of the usefulness of a particular style or system before buying in.
> 
> If you cannot see the logic of what I wrote above, I'm honestly not sure we have much left to discuss on this topic.



Except it's not the style it's the training.


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> Person a says, I train X system, and it's very effective for SD and fighting.
> 
> Person b says, I've sparred with many people that do x system and they all sucked at it, and I've further witnessed , either in person or on film, a good deal more people doing X system and they also sucked at it. Do you have evidence that there is a type of X system that works in actual sparring or combat?
> 
> Person A says I find it surreal that you would ask that, why don't you just believe me? Oh and I'll never provide that evidence btw because I shouldn't have to.
> 
> Person b backs away slowly....


  Any evidence you are given you dismiss as not actually being evidence so that you don't have to admit you are wrong


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> Any evidence you are given you dismiss as not actually being evidence so that you don't have to admit you are wrong


and yet the most vocal in requiring evidence from others won't provided any at all if asked nicely to do so. Funny that


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> Person a says, I train X system, and it's very effective for SD and fighting.
> 
> Person b says, I've sparred with many people that do x system and they all sucked at it, and I've further witnessed , either in person or on film, a good deal more people doing X system and they also sucked at it. Do you have evidence that there is a type of X system that works in actual sparring or combat?
> 
> Person A says I find it surreal that you would ask that, why don't you just believe me? Oh and I'll never provide that evidence btw because I shouldn't have to.
> 
> Person b backs away slowly....



Person c shakes his head sadly at the lack of critical thinking on display.

Funny thing is this has happened over and over again but some people refuse to learn the lesson..

Anyone remember when high kicks were totally impractical and couldn't work in a if like fight?

Karate was the ma community whipping boy for decades. Totally impractical... before Machida.

Nobody stops to think why people got these "common sense" assumptions wrong. Or how come despite the endless "evidence" of these things not working, suddenly they work for every Tom Dick or Harry.

Ultimately this issue of which systems work is about traditional arts most of whichever from the 19th century or older.
The thing with these systems is they were put together when there was no safe way to practice hitting so you couldn't learn from hundreds and hundreds of matches plus thousands of practice fights the way we can with modern combat sports.

But the fact is if you aim to win fights with punches then any victory by punching validates your art. 
Old battlefield arts like jujitsu were validated on the battlefield or the art died with its student's. 

All that needs to happen is adaptation of training methods and with that adaptation a greater insight into the science of fighting. Insight that was not available to past generations.

I didn't start this thread to say that nothing needs to change. Clearly lots of people struggle to make use of their fighting styles in the modern environment. But it is just wrong thinking to believe that the style is making bad fight decisions when it's the person employing the style who gets knocked out.


----------



## Martial D

Paul_D said:


> Any evidence you are given you dismiss as not actually being evidence so that you don't have to admit you are wrong


You keep saying that, even after I completely destroyed and debunked your two lonely examples.

Quit lying.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> Person c shakes his head sadly at the lack of critical thinking on display.
> 
> Funny thing is this has happened over and over again but some people refuse to learn the lesson..
> 
> Anyone remember when high kicks were totally impractical and couldn't work in a if like fight?
> 
> Karate was the ma community whipping boy for decades. Totally impractical... before Machida.
> 
> Nobody stops to think why people got these "common sense" assumptions wrong. Or how come despite the endless "evidence" of these things not working, suddenly they work for every Tom Dick or Harry.
> 
> Ultimately this issue of which systems work is about traditional arts most of whichever from the 19th century or older.
> The thing with these systems is they were put together when there was no safe way to practice hitting so you couldn't learn from hundreds and hundreds of matches plus thousands of practice fights the way we can with modern combat sports.
> 
> But the fact is if you aim to win fights with punches then any victory by punching validates your art.
> Old battlefield arts like jujitsu were validated on the battlefield or the art died with its student's.
> 
> All that needs to happen is adaptation of training methods and with that adaptation a greater insight into the science of fighting. Insight that was not available to past generations.
> 
> I didn't start this thread to say that nothing needs to change. Clearly lots of people struggle to make use of their fighting styles in the modern environment. But it is just wrong thinking to believe that the style is making bad fight decisions when it's the person employing the style who gets knocked out.



You continue to ignore the fact that style, too, is a variable. For someone that likes to makes constant jabs at people rather than focus on what is said in regards to their thinking ability, yours seems to be not without it's deficiencies.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> You continue to ignore the fact that style, too, is a variable. For someone that likes to makes constant jabs at people rather than focus on what is said in regards to their thinking ability, yours seems to be not without it's deficiencies.



Except that, like now, I quote and directly refute every point made against my arguments  (which are very few) as well as all the analogies and assertions which completely ignore my arguments (which are many) even though as long as they're unrefuted my arguments demolish your position before you've begun.

For example, I addressed style as a variable twice already. I examined in what capacity it affects fights, which you haven't. Then I pointed out why it pales in significance to training (the whole universal elements of combat like timing and distancing, skills required by everyone regardless of style that are critical to success in combat).

So I guess it's your turn to stop lying. Maybe instead you could actually consider the arguments I've made, or just read my posts so you can lie more effectively.

Repeating the same tired line of "Style is a variable too" doesn't really work if the point has been examined already.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> I have no clue what you are talking about?
> 
> I got the "Style plays a role" bit.
> 
> When considered in the context of the opponent style can determine how easy or difficult victory is.
> 
> Style is your strategy and your tactics and your mechanics. For traditional aikido the strategy is draw the attack and neutralise, the tactic is turn the attack energy against itself by x technique and I presume their mechanics are around proper posture but I don't know.
> 
> Is that a more difficult road than punch in the face? Sure. But what determines if it works or fails? The only answer to that is the training.



Not really. Boxers and wrestlers train pretty evenly in terms of effectiveness. They both have talented individuals and they both have good and bad days.

If style was not a factor they should be able to achieve the same results.

Except boxers can't wrestle and wrestlers can't box. (Mostly)

Their style determines what works and what doesn't.

A boxer can't train harder and be able to wrestle his style does not give him the tools.

If your style does not start with the right tools. The training is going to have a limited effect.

The style matters.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Not really. Boxers and wrestlers train pretty evenly in terms of effectiveness. They both have talented individuals and they both have good and bad days.
> 
> If style was not a factor they should be able to achieve the same results.
> 
> Except boxers can't wrestle and wrestlers can't box. (Mostly)
> 
> Their style determines what works and what doesn't.
> 
> A boxer can't train harder and be able to wrestle his style does not give him the tools.
> 
> If your style does not start with the right tools. The training is going to have a limited effect.
> 
> The style matters.


they can achieve the same result, ie victory, they just do it in different ways


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> Except that, like now, I quote and directly refute every point made against my arguments  (which are very few) as well as all the analogies and assertions which completely ignore my arguments (which are many) even though as long as they're unrefuted my arguments demolish your position before you've begun.
> 
> For example, I addressed style as a variable twice already. I examined in what capacity it affects fights, which you haven't. Then I pointed out why it pales in significance to training (the whole universal elements of combat like timing and distancing, skills required by everyone regardless of style that are critical to success in combat).
> 
> So I guess it's your turn to stop lying. Maybe instead you could actually consider the arguments I've made, or just read my posts so you can lie more effectively.
> 
> Repeating the same tired line of "Style is a variable too" doesn't really work if the point has been examined already.


Well, good luck arguing your points into reality. I'll just be over here waiting for these fantasy people you are trying to argue into existence to show up at my club and prove you right.

I'll be holding my breath.


----------



## drop bear

And by the way who blames their students for their crap system anyway.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> they can achieve the same result, ie victory, they just do it in different ways



So a boxer could somehow pull of a wrestling comp. Just in his different manner?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> So a boxer could somehow pull of a wrestling comp. Just in his different manner?


that's not really a rational argument, but yes a boxer could quite easily put a wrestler to sleep, if he is allowed to do that in a  wrestling comp is a different point than is being discussed here


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> that's not really a rational argument, but yes a boxer could quite easily put a wrestler to sleep, if he is allowed to do that in a  wrestling comp is a different point than is being discussed here



No. We are discussing if style plays a role in making martial arts work. This is the easiest to understand example.

People will try to make it about something else because it is a very hard argument to refute.

A style gives you certain defined skills. That has an effect on what works and what doesn't.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Not really. Boxers and wrestlers train pretty evenly in terms of effectiveness. They both have talented individuals and they both have good and bad days.
> 
> If style was not a factor they should be able to achieve the same results.
> 
> Except boxers can't wrestle and wrestlers can't box. (Mostly)
> 
> Their style determines what works and what doesn't.
> 
> A boxer can't train harder and be able to wrestle his style does not give him the tools.
> 
> If your style does not start with the right tools. The training is going to have a limited effect.
> 
> The style matters.


What are you talking about?

How do we go from a discussion about fighting to getting sportsmen  to play different sports???

Your last 3 sentences were the only parts that made sense, and I agree, but your forgetting I stipulated talking about styles that use standard striking and grappling methods. The tools are there. A punch is a punch, a kick is a kick. Whether or not they land is based on how well you train.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Person c shakes his head sadly at the lack of critical thinking on display.
> 
> Funny thing is this has happened over and over again but some people refuse to learn the lesson..
> 
> Anyone remember when high kicks were totally impractical and couldn't work in a if like fight?
> 
> Karate was the ma community whipping boy for decades. Totally impractical... before Machida.
> 
> Nobody stops to think why people got these "common sense" assumptions wrong. Or how come despite the endless "evidence" of these things not working, suddenly they work for every Tom Dick or Harry.
> 
> Ultimately this issue of which systems work is about traditional arts most of whichever from the 19th century or older.
> The thing with these systems is they were put together when there was no safe way to practice hitting so you couldn't learn from hundreds and hundreds of matches plus thousands of practice fights the way we can with modern combat sports.
> 
> But the fact is if you aim to win fights with punches then any victory by punching validates your art.
> Old battlefield arts like jujitsu were validated on the battlefield or the art died with its student's.
> 
> All that needs to happen is adaptation of training methods and with that adaptation a greater insight into the science of fighting. Insight that was not available to past generations.
> 
> I didn't start this thread to say that nothing needs to change. Clearly lots of people struggle to make use of their fighting styles in the modern environment. But it is just wrong thinking to believe that the style is making bad fight decisions when it's the person employing the style who gets knocked out.


that's a well thought out post, but id add, that its not really the art of fighting having changed, people are much the same, rather the art of sports fitness has changed and the old school fitness programed originating from a few hundred years ago leave artist woefully unprepared against a person who employed more modern techniques'.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> No. We are discussing if style plays a role in making martial arts work. This is the easiest to understand example.
> 
> People will try to make it about something else because it is a very hard argument to refute.
> 
> A style gives you certain defined skills. That has an effect on what works and what doesn't.


but its silly, its like posting a cake maker is better at making cakes than a biker. Duh

if its a one,style only competition, then the person who practices that style has a marked advantage, im not sure how establishing that has move your point forward


----------



## newjack2k

There are no superior martial arts.  Only superior martial artists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Charlemagne

Flying Crane said:


> Can you understand that?  Can you accept that possibility, that something you may dislike, can be useful to others?


 Of course I can.  Hence the reason that I would ask to see evidence.  



> Because I will be honest with you here:  what you are describing is a level of misinformed distrust that borders on paranoia.


  No, it is simple prudence.  We are all on an anonymous internet forum.  I have no freaking clue who you are.  You have no freaking clue who I am.  Blind trust to complete strangers is something no one should expect.



> I stick to my earlier statement: this is weird and surreal.


What is weird and surreal is your willingness to take complete strangers in an internet forum on blind faith, and that you are shocked that I and others won't do the same.  What is also weird and surreal is your amazement that someone might wish to see evidence of the effectiveness of your system and expecting that people will just go along and trust that you know what the heck you are talking about, particularly if they are looking to train for the purposes of defense of themselves or a loved one.  Martial artists have been operating this way for way too long, and it is a crock of crap.


----------



## Charlemagne

DaveB said:


> Except it's not the style it's the training.



It's also the style.  



Charlemagne said:


> There are really a number of factors here.  Specifically,
> 
> Style/Systems trained
> Training method (how is a given style trained.  Is there contact, aliveness, technical precision, power, etc.)
> The teacher's ability to transmit the system in an effective way
> Non-modifiable attributes/anthropometerics
> Modifiable attributes (strength, conditioning, body mass, flexibility, motor control and learning, nutrition, etc.)
> Cognitive (Sport psych, drive, tactical understanding, willingness to accept discomfort/pain, reasons for training/fighting, etc.)
> 
> All of these things are going to interact to varying degrees depending on the situation.
> 
> However, the bottom line that, in situations where some of the other variables have been removed, or at least made a bit more equal (to the extent that they really ever can be), there are some styles which consistently show the ability to perform under a high level of stress, and some which have little to no documented evidence of the same.  There are some people on here that don't like to hear that, and some that don't seem to want to accept it, but it is reality nonetheless.
> 
> In addition, there are some styles which have documented evidence working when some of the variables I noted above are not equal, particularly some of the modifiable attributes and anthropometrics (aka, size) and there are styles which have little to no documented evidence of the same.  Again, there are some people who don't want to hear that, but it is still the truth regardless of personal preference.
> 
> As I noted earlier, I do believe that the number of systems that will work is probably higher than often touted by those in the "aliveness" camp.  For example, I don't think it is reasonable to believe that Kyokushin is the _only_ form of Karate that can work well against a resisting opponent with full contact.  It simply happens to be the system where a charismatic leader decided to make hard contact a regular part of their training and testing, and put themselves out there for others to see doing that in ways that other forms of Karate have done less of, both against each other, and against persons from other styles with documented evidence of aliveness in their training and testing, such as MT, etc.
> 
> There are even more that probably have _aspects_ of what they do which will work.  The actual numbers and which systems those are is harder to get a handle on, simply because the the type of training and pressure testing necessary to figure that out is either not being done or not being disseminated.
> 
> These arguments about which systems might work or might not will not be settled in any meaningful way until persons in those systems without documented evidence of fighting ability against a resisting opponent start showing the desire and ability to pressure test their systems, are successful in doing so, and disseminate it.  If they are not willing to do that, then they ought to be prepared to accept that people are doing to doubt the effectiveness of what they do.  In other words, if you don't want to test your system in that way, don't get bent out of shape when people vocally doubt the effectiveness of what you do.  If you want to silence the critics, you know how to do it.


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> Of course I can.  Hence the reason that I would ask to see evidence.
> 
> No, it is simple prudence.  We are all on an anonymous internet forum.  I have no freaking clue who you are.  You have no freaking clue who I am.  Blind trust to complete strangers is something no one should expect.
> 
> 
> What is weird and surreal is your willingness to take complete strangers in an internet forum on blind faith, and that you are shocked that I and others won't do the same.  What is also weird and surreal is your amazement that someone might wish to see evidence of the effectiveness of your system and expecting that people will just go along and trust that you know what the heck you are talking about, particularly if they are looking to train for the purposes of defense of themselves or a loved one.  Martial artists have been operating this way for way too long, and it is a crock of crap.


If I tell you I had a banana for breakfast, do you believe me?  Or do you need to do a fecal analysis first?

I'm not telling you that you need to eat a banana too.  I'm just telling you that I had one.  Do you believe me?


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> If I tell you I had a banana for breakfast, do you believe me?  Or do you need to do a fecal analysis first?
> 
> I'm not telling you that you need to eat a banana too.  I'm just telling you that I had one.  Do you believe me?


No, but if you told me you ate a banana and it allowed you to levitate I would reasonably ask you to provide some evidence that bananas help you do so.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> How do we go from a discussion about fighting to getting sportsmen  to play different sports???
> 
> Your last 3 sentences were the only parts that made sense, and I agree, but your forgetting I stipulated talking about styles that use standard striking and grappling methods. The tools are there. A punch is a punch, a kick is a kick. Whether or not they land is based on how well you train.


Your arguments only work because you believe in them. If we look at those arguments rationally they fall apart.

So you are trying to say all styles that already work due to a bunch of prearranged expectations work.

Yes if boxers boxed by grabbing people and throwing them they could certainly wrestle.

But styles don't have to meet your expectations of effectiveness.

The boxers ability to wrestle does not change depending on what fight he is in be it a sports fight or a street fight.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> but its silly, its like posting a cake maker is better at making cakes than a biker. Duh
> 
> if its a one,style only competition, then the person who practices that style has a marked advantage, im not sure how establishing that has move your point forward



Because if style did not matter. In a one style only competition. It would not matter what style was trained.

Because style doesn't matter.

They would be interchangeable.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

Moving away from the meaningless arguing about evidence for a moment, I'd like to point out that the effectiveness of a style can change over time as our knowledge of fighting expands. As a species we humans are constantly learning more about the world and that can change our perception of it. For example, our knowledge of biomechanics and physics is a lot greater now than it was 100 years ago and this is affecting our fighting abilities. It's not just knowledge either, but physical skill. A greater level of physical skill enables you to do more with a style than you could before. 

Anyone who watches E-sports over time knows this, as it generally happens at an accelerated rate compared to Martial Arts (months and years compared to decades). There will be a time where a certain style or unit in a game will be considered very weak and inefficient compared to other styles, until somebody develops the physical skills necessary to be able to make that style effective. Once that happens and the rest of the gaming community sees it, the whole community will slowly gain those physical skills in order to use the style and it becomes mainstream. Then something that seemed impossible to use is suddenly seen everywhere. This phenomenon also works the other way around. There may be a style within a game that appears to be completely unstoppable until someone develops the knowledge and physical skill to defeat it. Once that happens, again the game's community will raise their skill level and their perception of that unbeatable style will change.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Your arguments only work because you believe in them. If we look at those arguments rationally they fall apart.
> 
> So you are trying to say all styles that already work due to a bunch of prearranged expectations work.
> 
> Yes if boxers boxed by grabbing people and throwing them they could certainly wrestle.
> 
> But styles don't have to meet your expectations of effectiveness.
> 
> The boxers ability to wrestle does not change depending on what fight he is in be it a sports fight or a street fight.



That's not even close to my position or to a sensible argument.

The thing is as you go off on these tangents you confuse the argument with the points being made to refute your nonsensical analogies.

1. The argument is that training determines effectiveness in fighting. It has mothing to do with expectations of effectiveness. That was never said anywhere.

2. Wrestling is a game with its own set of rules. You cannot apply any fighting style in a wrestling match other than wrestling.

Let's see a ufc champion be effective when they are only allowed to hit after solving complex physics equations. Since were placing game restrictions on fighting styles to determine effectiveness this makes total sense. My new nuclear physics fighting style will be supreme.

3. If you really want to get into it, wrestling and boxing aren't fighting styles, they are games shaped and determined 100% by a set of rules and objectives. Yes they are great ways to train a fighter, but they are not solutions to the problem of combat.


----------



## DaveB

Charlemagne said:


> It's also the style.


Yeah people keep saying that, but how?

What impact does a style have that is greater than the impact of universal core skills that are built up by training?


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Your arguments only work because you believe in them. If we look at those arguments rationally they fall apart.
> .


It seems you only feel that way because you don't read my actual arguments. Like here your talking about expectations???

I am happy to be proven wrong, but to do that you need to look at what I say and find a reason it's not true.

Your best attempt has been suggesting style is also a variable. A point I accepted, but why do you think the shape of a punch or preference for in-fighting is more important than core skills that everyone has to have to hit or grapple???




> The boxers ability to wrestle does not change depending on what fight he is in be it a sports fight or a street fight.



No it doesn't, but if he trains right he will be able to hit the wrestler before he is grappled. And if boxing were a fighting style rather than a sport it would have some method of coping with grappling attempts or would expand to develop them.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Because if style did not matter. In a one style only competition. It would not matter what style was trained.
> 
> Because style doesn't matter.
> 
> They would be interchangeable.



This is a classic straw man argument. Exactly the same one Martial D tried in the chun thread. 

The argument is any fighting style can *work*. 
Work was specified to achieving It's objectives or showing the significant  potential to if not for superior opposition (not in those exact words but that's the gist).

I never said your style doesn't shape your specialisms. That would be a stupid thing to say. 

I even went as far as to say that style can limit your potential against other styles with incompatible specialisms. But this is a different argument. It is a style v style argument not a does x style work argument.

I feel I should say something about reading posts, but what's the point?


----------



## Midnight-shadow

DaveB said:


> Yeah people keep saying that, but how?
> 
> What impact does a style have that is greater than the impact of universal core skills that are built up by training?



In my personal opinion we shouldn't be splitting the 2, as the universal core skills are influenced by the style, and vice versa. Again I'm going to refer back to competitive video gaming in this. In the gaming world we have players known as One-Trick Ponies (OTPs for short) who exclusively practice a single unit, and other players who use many different units (generalists). But regardless of all of this, all players still develop the same core set of physical skills and knowledge in their gameplay, they just use them in different ways. What's interesting here is that the OTPs will use the core skill set to enhance their favoured unit and take it to the next level, whereas the generalists will take the core skills that they learned with one unit and adapt them to play the others. This allows the generalists to quickly pick up new unknown units and learn them more quickly, as well as being able to adapt to unfamiliar situations on the fly. 

To bring this back to fighting, let's say a Boxer is our OTP, and an MMA fighter is our generalist. Both types of fighters practice a simple palm block, but the difference is that a Boxer will train that palm block exclusively to defend against punches to the head, whereas the MMA fighter will use the principles of the palm block and apply them to the other types of attacks, thus being able to use the palm block in a variety of situations. This may appear to give the MMA fighter the advantage, but the flip side is that the Boxer will likely have a higher skill level at blocking strikes to the head than the MMA fighter, and be able to block attacks that may seem impossible. 

So as you can see, style and core skills are intertwined as both are influenced by the other.


----------



## DaveB

Midnight-shadow said:


> In my personal opinion we shouldn't be splitting the 2, as the universal core skills are influenced by the style, and vice versa. Again I'm going to refer back to competitive video gaming in this. In the gaming world we have players known as One-Trick Ponies (OTPs for short) who exclusively practice a single unit, and other players who use many different units (generalists). But regardless of all of this, all players still develop the same core set of physical skills and knowledge in their gameplay, they just use them in different ways. What's interesting here is that the OTPs will use the core skill set to enhance their favoured unit and take it to the next level, whereas the generalists will take the core skills that they learned with one unit and adapt them to play the others. This allows the generalists to quickly pick up new unknown units and learn them more quickly, as well as being able to adapt to unfamiliar situations on the fly.
> 
> To bring this back to fighting, let's say a Boxer is our OTP, and an MMA fighter is our generalist. Both types of fighters practice a simple palm block, but the difference is that a Boxer will train that palm block exclusively to defend against punches to the head, whereas the MMA fighter will use the principles of the palm block and apply them to the other types of attacks, thus being able to use the palm block in a variety of situations. This may appear to give the MMA fighter the advantage, but the flip side is that the Boxer will likely have a higher skill level at blocking strikes to the head than the MMA fighter, and be able to block attacks that may seem impossible.
> 
> So as you can see, style and core skills are intertwined as both are influenced by the other.


Thanks for the considered response, but I disagree.

A palm block is not what I consider a core skill, it is a style specific technique. 

The core skill is the coordination and reaction timing necessary to intercept a blow whether it's with a simple boxing cover or a karate intercepting forearm block.

So the style is the form the defence takes, but the skills necessary to get in position and react and balance and spot threats, these are general skills that are/can be trained in non style specific ways. They are also what determines your effectiveness.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> This is a classic straw man argument. Exactly the same one Martial D tried in the chun thread.
> 
> The argument is any fighting style can *work*.
> Work was specified to achieving It's objectives or showing the significant  potential to if not for superior opposition (not in those exact words but that's the gist).
> 
> I never said your style doesn't shape your specialisms. That would be a stupid thing to say.
> 
> I even went as far as to say that style can limit your potential against other styles with incompatible specialisms. But this is a different argument. It is a style v style argument not a does x style work argument.
> 
> I feel I should say something about reading posts, but what's the point?



So it is just a vague undefined concept of work. 

It makes your whole premis even sillier.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> It seems you only feel that way because you don't read my actual arguments. Like here your talking about expectations???
> 
> I am happy to be proven wrong, but to do that you need to look at what I say and find a reason it's not true.
> 
> Your best attempt has been suggesting style is also a variable. A point I accepted, but why do you think the shape of a punch or preference for in-fighting is more important than core skills that everyone has to have to hit or grapple???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, but if he trains right he will be able to hit the wrestler before he is grappled. And if boxing were a fighting style rather than a sport it would have some method of coping with grappling attempts or would expand to develop them.



If style is a variable then working or not working is dependent on style. 

A boxer can hit wrestlers because the style matters. It is pretty simple. A boxer can hit because of his style.

If a boxer developed a method of grappling it would be a different style. And style would still matter.

You can't just say style doesn't matter because people can train other styles. People train other styles because styles matter.

Reading your actual arguments make no sense.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> That's not even close to my position or to a sensible argument.
> 
> The thing is as you go off on these tangents you confuse the argument with the points being made to refute your nonsensical analogies.
> 
> 1. The argument is that training determines effectiveness in fighting. It has mothing to do with expectations of effectiveness. That was never said anywhere.
> 
> 2. Wrestling is a game with its own set of rules. You cannot apply any fighting style in a wrestling match other than wrestling.
> 
> Let's see a ufc champion be effective when they are only allowed to hit after solving complex physics equations. Since were placing game restrictions on fighting styles to determine effectiveness this makes total sense. My new nuclear physics fighting style will be supreme.
> 
> 3. If you really want to get into it, wrestling and boxing aren't fighting styles, they are games shaped and determined 100% by a set of rules and objectives. Yes they are great ways to train a fighter, but they are not solutions to the problem of combat.



Fighting styles vs games?

Is style vs style.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

DaveB said:


> Thanks for the considered response, but I disagree.
> 
> A palm block is not what I consider a core skill, it is a style specific technique.
> 
> The core skill is the coordination and reaction timing necessary to intercept a blow whether it's with a simple boxing cover or a karate intercepting forearm block.
> 
> So the style is the form the defence takes, but the skills necessary to get in position and react and balance and spot threats, these are general skills that are/can be trained in non style specific ways. They are also what determines your effectiveness.



Granted, the example I gave wasn't the best but the point still stands that core skills and style are intrinsically linked and as a result neither has a greater impact over the other.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> If style is a variable then working or not working is dependent on style.



Yes, but if style determines 2%, training determines 92%. So what's your point?



> A boxer can hit wrestlers because the style matters. It is pretty simple. A boxer can hit because of his style.



How? Saying something matters doesn't explain how it works to affect things.



> If a boxer developed a method of grappling it would be a different style. And style would still matter.
> 
> You can't just say style doesn't matter because people can train other styles. People train other styles because styles matter.



I could say that. I didn't and wouldn't, but I could. Do you have a straw factory or something?



> Reading your actual arguments make no sense.



Like boxers can hit because their style is boxing. Not at all a circular argument.

Boxers can hit because they are people with arms and legs who spend time practicing the skills needed to land hits.  

How do you think style changes this?


----------



## DaveB

Midnight-shadow said:


> Granted, the example I gave wasn't the best but the point still stands that core skills and style are intrinsically linked and as a result neither has a greater impact over the other.



I don't see how the point stands when my point was that combat skills are universal and independent of style.

Let's try this. 
How does style affect the underlying skill of blocking/covering?


----------



## Charlemagne

DaveB said:


> Yeah people keep saying that, but how?
> 
> What impact does a style have that is greater than the impact of universal core skills that are built up by training?



There are tactical implications of style.  In other words, it impacts your decision making.  It impacts your understanding of range and timing.  It impacts the attributes that you believe are important to develop and the manner in which you understand physical altercations

This is not to mention the myriad of physical differences which differing styles present.


----------



## jobo

Charlemagne said:


> There are tactical implications of style.  In other words, it impacts your decision making.  It impacts your understanding of range and timing.  It impacts the attributes that you believe are important to develop and the manner in which you understand physical altercations
> 
> This is not to mention the myriad of physical differences which differing styles present.


I accept that, but they all give you those attributes but in perhaps slightly different ways


----------



## Midnight-shadow

DaveB said:


> I don't see how the point stands when my point was that combat skills are universal and independent of style.
> 
> Let's try this.
> How does style affect the underlying skill of blocking/covering?



Except that I believe that the combat skills directly influence the style, and are in turn influenced by the style. How does style affect the skill of blocking? I'm pretty sure I already covered this. A boxer trains their blocks to defend against punches, mostly to the head and sometimes the upper torso, whereas an MMA fighter will train their blocks not only for punches, but for kicks as well. The style has therefore influenced the blocking skill. 

Don't get me wrong, there are certain basic attributes and skills that are required in all Martial Arts, things like balance, hand-eye coordination, fast reaction times, etc but again, these skills are influenced by the activity or style you are using them for.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> I could say that. I didn't and wouldn't, but I could. Do you have a straw factory or something?



Really?

*And if boxing were a fighting style rather than a sport it would have some method of coping with grappling attempts or would expand to develop them.*

Then boxing would be doing a different style.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Like boxers can hit because their style is boxing. Not at all a circular argument.
> 
> Boxers can hit because they are people with arms and legs who spend time practicing the skills needed to land hits.
> 
> How do you think style changes this?



Yes it is circular. People are capable of skills because their style equips them.

Boxers spend time learning how to hit properly. How properly you learn how to hit determines how well you hit.

Style.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Yes, but if style determines 2%, training determines 92%. So what's your point?



If. 
What is your evidence this is the case?

And 2% is still 2%. Not 0%


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> No, but if you told me you ate a banana and it allowed you to levitate I would reasonably ask you to provide some evidence that bananas help you do so.



All you had to do was ask, bro.



 



 
I know it was a small banana, but I'm kinda scared of heights.


----------



## DaveB

Charlemagne said:


> There are tactical implications of style.  In other words, it impacts your decision making.  It impacts your understanding of range and timing.  It impacts the attributes that you believe are important to develop and the manner in which you understand physical altercations
> 
> This is not to mention the myriad of physical differences which differing styles present.



I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree. I'll try to take each point in turn because your well thought out answer deserves a detailed response.

1. Tactical implications, such as decision making.

Yes, I totally agree. Style does affect decision making. If I am a karate guy I'm almost never going to chose to shoot for a double leg takedown where I might if I'm a jujitsu guy.

But, how do I go from Joe Nevertrained to expert karate fighter?
I train. There's nothing else to it but training.

So stylistically I'm encouraged to go for x technique over y technique. 

How do I land technique x? How do I set it up? How do I know when I should go for something different because it's not safe?

Training. 

Because even if your style comes with a book of theory explaining when and why to do x, y and z techniques, good training will illuminate any flaws in those theories.

You see, this is how I know guys like drop bear are just clinging to this idea of style relevance in order to have something to bash: in a different conversation my argument is their argument.

Train with hard contact to work out what works and what's b.s..
Well if you do that but keep an analytical mind, your not just going to throw stuff out, you are going to learn what you need to do to hit with a short punch or to take someone's balance with aiki principles etc.

It's a natural progression of their same message.

2. Style impacts the attributes you choose to develop. 

Again, completely agree. Style influences your specialisms. 
How do you execute a specialism like ground fighting? You train to get into position and deal with obstacles and counters and to develop the attributes you need to pull it off. If your training is lacking you won't be successful. 

Training is still the decisive factor.

3. The manner in which you understand physical altercation. 

This I disagree with. It may affect how I view my tactical options, because I only have the options I've developed in training. But Understanding is down to experience. Again how much I've been exposed to through my training.

Can you argue that individual styles offer limited training experiences due to having classes filled with people doing the same thing? Sure. But it's up to the teacher to improve the breadth of your training. It's not a weakness of the system of fighting.

4. Physical differences. I'm not sure what exactly your referring to, can you elaborate.


----------



## DaveB

Midnight-shadow said:


> Except that I believe that the combat skills directly influence the style, and are in turn influenced by the style. How does style affect the skill of blocking? I'm pretty sure I already covered this. A boxer trains their blocks to defend against punches, mostly to the head and sometimes the upper torso, whereas an MMA fighter will train their blocks not only for punches, but for kicks as well. The style has therefore influenced the blocking skill.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, there are certain basic attributes and skills that are required in all Martial Arts, things like balance, hand-eye coordination, fast reaction times, etc but again, these skills are influenced by the activity or style you are using them for.



You defeated your own point.


> A boxer *trains* their blocks to defend against punches,



So fix the training and you fix the flaw.

The trouble is you are conflating style and training. Yet boxing only trains as you describe because of competition rules, not because of fight philosophy. This is actually the difference between a sport and a martial art, but that's a separate issue.

Even if/especially if boxing was an ma again, there's nothing stopping the boxer from changing up his training to handle a wider range of attacks.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Really?
> 
> *And if boxing were a fighting style rather than a sport it would have some method of coping with grappling attempts or would expand to develop them.*
> 
> Then boxing would be doing a different style.


1, not necessarily. The development may just be tactical movement and striking to preemptively disrupt grapple attempts. Not necessarily new techniques.

2. So what? Only historians and the faithful believe in preserving arts without letting them grow or adapt. Look how many variations of wing chun there are.

3. How is that quote saying style doesn't matter because people can train other styles? Why after I've repeated my quite simple point so many times is it so hard for you to stick to it and not invent random straw men?


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Yes it is circular. People are capable of skills because their style equips them.
> 
> Boxers spend time learning how to hit properly. How properly you learn how to hit determines how well you hit.
> 
> Style.


And what do boxers call learning how to hit properly???
Training maybe?

How properly you learn is more commonly referred to as...
How well you train?

Training style? Yes. Fighting Style? No.

Peekaboo = a fighting style.
Philly shell = a fighting style.
Hitting focus pads in combination = training.

But this is progress.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> If.
> What is your evidence this is the case?
> 
> And 2% is still 2%. Not 0%



I never said it was 0%, I said it is insignificant in comparison to.

My unbiased analytical assessment of martial arts is my evidence (I'm an analyst by trade). Not to mention that despite your huge desire to style bash you just said so yourself without realising it.

Also if I have to provide evidence so do you.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

DaveB said:


> You defeated your own point.
> 
> 
> So fix the training and you fix the flaw.
> 
> The trouble is you are conflating style and training. Yet boxing only trains as you describe because of competition rules, not because of fight philosophy. This is actually the difference between a sport and a martial art, but that's a separate issue.
> 
> Even if/especially if boxing was an ma again, there's nothing stopping the boxer from changing up his training to handle a wider range of attacks.



If a boxer starts training to use and defend against kicks is it still boxing? Also it seems logical that the sport rules would come from the fighting philosophy, not the other way round. I haven't looked too deeply into this but don't boxers have the philosophy that kicks are too risky and unnecessary to bother with and therefore train with just punching in mind? The boxing community then made the rules of the sport around this philosophy? Of course, nowadays boxers train based on the sports rules, but I doubt it was always like that. 

Surely people have to be practicing a Martial Art before the sport was invented.


----------



## DaveB

Midnight-shadow said:


> If a boxer starts training to use and defend against kicks is it still boxing? Also it seems logical that the sport rules would come from the fighting philosophy, not the other way round. I haven't looked too deeply into this but don't boxers have the philosophy that kicks are too risky and unnecessary to bother with and therefore train with just punching in mind? The boxing community then made the rules of the sport around this philosophy? Of course, nowadays boxers train based on the sports rules, but I doubt it was always like that.
> 
> Surely people have to be practicing a Martial Art before the sport was invented.



The rules of boxing exist to make a fair competition and to reinforce safety. Before that boxers punched kicked elbowed and grappled.

Once it became a rule defined sport it ceased to be a martial art as it did what it did for other reasons than preservation from violence.

As to the general point of a style changing, They always have and hopefully always will. As I said earlier, if you can have countless styles within an art all based on variations and additions why should it be a problem to adapt your training.

That being said, I define a fighting style by it's principles. That is rules/guidelines that you adapt into techniques. So as long as my body is obeying the physical rules and my use of a technique is obeying tactical/strategic rules then you are not IMO altering the style.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

DaveB said:


> The rules of boxing exist to make a fair competition and to reinforce safety. Before that boxers punched kicked elbowed and grappled.
> 
> Once it became a rule defined sport it ceased to be a martial art as it did what it did for other reasons than preservation from violence.
> 
> As to the general point of a style changing, They always have and hopefully always will. As I said earlier, if you can have countless styles within an art all based on variations and additions why should it be a problem to adapt your training.
> 
> That being said, I define a fighting style by it's principles. That is rules/guidelines that you adapt into techniques. So as long as my body is obeying the physical rules and my use of a technique is obeying tactical/strategic rules then you are not IMO altering the style.



Ok, I've done a bit of reading and from what I can tell Boxing has never been used as anything but a sport. Even in Roman times it was only ever done as a sport. There may not have been many rules back then and fights were usually to the death, but it was still a sport. So in your opinion Boxing was never a Martial Art?

I agree with you that a style is defined by the principles and that variations can occur as long as the principles still apply.


----------



## DaveB

Midnight-shadow said:


> Ok, I've done a bit of reading and from what I can tell Boxing has never been used as anything but a sport. Even in Roman times it was only ever done as a sport. There may not have been many rules back then and fights were usually to the death, but it was still a sport. So in your opinion Boxing was never a Martial Art?
> 
> I agree with you that a style is defined by the principles and that variations can occur as long as the principles still apply.



I've seen references to boxing and wrestling as martial arts, taught alongside fencing in Europrean martial arts schools hundreds of years ago, but I could be mistaken.


----------



## jobo

Midnight-shadow said:


> Ok, I've done a bit of reading and from what I can tell Boxing has never been used as anything but a sport. Even in Roman times it was only ever done as a sport. There may not have been many rules back then and fights were usually to the death, but it was still a sport. So in your opinion Boxing was never a Martial Art?
> 
> I agree with you that a style is defined by the principles and that variations can occur as long as the principles still apply.


this discussion is turning quite bizarre, not only have you not defined boxing you haven't defined sport

any system that can only be apples according to rules is a sport, so all boxing that has a referee( or even a gentleman agreement) is a,sport, however the boxing skill set can be used anywhere, to attack others to defend ones self, at that point it isn't being used as a sporting contest, so isn't by defintion a sport?


----------



## Midnight-shadow

jobo said:


> this discussion is turning quite bizarre, not only have you not defined boxing you haven't defined sport
> 
> any system that can only be apples according to rules is a sport, so all boxing that has a referee( or even a gentleman agreement) is a,sport, however the boxing skill set can be used anywhere, to attack others to defend ones self, at that point it isn't being used as a sporting contest, so isn't by defintion a sport?



I'm with you there, it's DaveB that is under the impression that something can't be both a sport and a Martial Art at the same time. If you believe that then Boxing (which has only ever been used as a sport) isn't a Martial Art.


----------



## jobo

Midnight-shadow said:


> I'm with you there, it's DaveB that is under the impression that something can't be both a sport and a Martial Art at the same time. If you believe that then Boxing (which has only ever been used as a sport) isn't a Martial Art.


boxing under a rule set has only ever been a sport, but much the same is true of all ma, unless it getting on to the silly discussion that only battlefield fighting is martial


----------



## DaveB

The point about boxing being a sport is just to explain why boxers don't train to defend kicks or takedowns. 

Of course you can use boxing to fight, but that is not the purpose of the game of boxing. 

As fighting is not the purpose, there's no reason to expect a boxer to have a takedown defence etc. So trying to justify the idea of the "boxing fighting style" being a relevant factor in fighting because of what it is lacking is a red herring.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> boxing under a rule set has only ever been a sport, but much the same is true of all ma, unless it getting on to the silly discussion that only battlefield fighting is martial


I define martial arts as systems or methods of fighting for the purpose of preservation against violence. Purpose is key.

Boxing is a competition with the aim of winning either by points or knockout where points are scored by landing blows with the front part of a gloved fist. 
Everything else about boxing is based on those limitations. The "style" is shaped by the rules and objectives of the competition.

If points were scored only when blows hit the tummy and head shots got you penalised, boxers would not guard the head ever. But head shots are entertaining and so far not too lethal for public consumption so for now boxing happens to be useful for fighting because there is enough overlap between it and most real life situations.

Just like 400m sprinting. Arguably the best self defence skill one can learn, but not a martial art.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> I define martial arts as systems or methods of fighting for the purpose of preservation against violence. Purpose is key.
> 
> Boxing is a competition with the aim of winning either by points or knockout where points are scored by landing blows with the front part of a gloved fist.
> Everything else about boxing is based on those limitations. The "style" is shaped by the rules and objectives of the competition.
> 
> If points were scored only when blows hit the tummy and head shots got you penalised, boxers would not guard the head ever. But head shots are entertaining and so far not too lethal for public consumption so for now boxing happens to be useful for fighting because there is enough overlap between it and most real life situations.
> 
> Just like 400m sprinting. Arguably the best self defence skill one can learn, but not a martial art.


a couple of points, there are people who learn and practise boxing for self defence purposes or to preserve against violence if you wish. Therefore by your own defintion it then becomes a ma.
second, I had a fighting method long before I took up ma, the purpose was to preserve against violence, your defintion would include my clumsy fighting as a ma,as that was its purpose and purpose is key


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> I define martial arts as systems or methods of fighting for the purpose of preservation against violence. Purpose is key.
> 
> Boxing is a competition with the aim of winning either by points or knockout where points are scored by landing blows with the front part of a gloved fist.
> Everything else about boxing is based on those limitations. The "style" is shaped by the rules and objectives of the competition.
> 
> If points were scored only when blows hit the tummy and head shots got you penalised, boxers would not guard the head ever. But head shots are entertaining and so far not too lethal for public consumption so for now boxing happens to be useful for fighting because there is enough overlap between it and most real life situations.
> 
> Just like 400m sprinting. Arguably the best self defence skill one can learn, but not a martial art.


Wait.  You don't think boxing is a martial art?  Just trying to keep up here.


----------



## Flying Crane

Buka said:


> All you had to do was ask, bro.
> View attachment 20886
> 
> View attachment 20887
> I know it was a small banana, but I'm kinda scared of heights.


I cannot accept this as proof.  I did not see you actually eat the banana.  For all I know, you posed for a picture with the banana and then threw it away.  Hell, it might not even be you in the picture!  Or maybe you ate the banana for a mid-afternoon snack, and NOT for breakfast.  You are a liar and a deceiver of the worst sort!


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> a couple of points, there are people who learn and practise boxing for self defence purposes or to preserve against violence if you wish. Therefore by your own defintion it then becomes a ma.
> second, I had a fighting method long before I took up ma, the purpose was to preserve against violence, your defintion would include my clumsy fighting as a ma,as that was its purpose and purpose is key



Yes to both points.

It's not meant to be any big deal that boxing isn't ma, it's just how I see it. There's nothing wrong with sport, combat or otherwise.

In the context of this discussion boxing as an ma constitutes one of those incomplete systems that the mma folk are always on about, since it's solutions to violence are sorely limited. But it is great at what it does and will work for a lot of situations so long as the training is up to scratch.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Yes to both points.
> 
> It's not meant to be any big deal that boxing isn't ma, it's just how I see it. There's nothing wrong with sport, combat or otherwise.
> 
> In the context of this discussion boxing as an ma constitutes one of those incomplete systems that the mma folk are always on about, since it's solutions to violence are sorely limited. But it is great at what it does and will work for a lot of situations so long as the training is up to scratch.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Yes to both points.
> 
> It's not meant to be any big deal that boxing isn't ma, it's just how I see it. There's nothing wrong with sport, combat or otherwise.
> 
> In the context of this discussion boxing as an ma constitutes one of those incomplete systems that the mma folk are always on about, since it's solutions to violence are sorely limited. But it is great at what it does and will work for a lot of situations so long as the training is up to scratch.



but if we followed that logic through, any art that is completed with a rule set would also not be a ma

there is no reason a boxer in a street encounted culdnt elbow some one or kick them or anything really, its usefulness isn't restricted by is tournament rules book, any more than say karate  tournament rule book stops you from bitting someone ear in a real fight


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> but if we followed that logic through, any art that is completed with a rule set would also not be a ma


What do you mean completed with a rule set?

As I said it's purpose not construction that defines.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> but if we followed that logic through, any art that is completed with a rule set would also not be a ma
> 
> there is no reason a boxer in a street encounted culdnt elbow some one or kick them or anything really, its usefulness isn't restricted by is tournament rules book, any more than say karate  tournament rule book stops you from bitting someone ear in a real fight



What do you mean completed with a rule set? As I said it's purpose, not construction, that defines.

I'm not saying a boxer can't elbow, on the street. In fact following my argument I'm actually saying that if you were boxing as a martial art, there's nothing stopping you from adding elbows to your boxing skill set. 

I'm not sure what it is you feel I'm saying that would limit a boxers behaviour?

Boxing is a sport and so if you go to learn boxing you will not be taught to elbow as it is against the rules, but people can train how they want. That's pretty much my whole point in this thread!


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> What do you mean completed with a rule set? As I said it's purpose, not construction, that defines.
> 
> I'm not saying a boxer can't elbow, on the street. In fact following my argument I'm actually saying that if you were boxing as a martial art, there's nothing stopping you from adding elbows to your boxing skill set.
> 
> I'm not sure what it is you feel I'm saying that would limit a boxers behaviour?
> 
> Boxing is a sport and so if you go to learn boxing you will not be taught to elbow as it is against the rules, but people can train how they want. That's pretty much my whole point in this thread!


but they have multiple purposes, I can learn karate as a sport to complete at a tournament under a rule set, I can fight informally at the dojo under a rule,set, I can fight in the street under no rule,set. but the karate is exactly the same, you can't say it's not an ma in one circumstance but is in another


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> but they have multiple purposes, I can learn karate as a sport to complete at a tournament under a rule set, I can fight informally at the dojo under a rule,set, I can fight in the street under no rule,set. but the karate is exactly the same, you can't say it's not an ma in one circumstance but is in another



Personally I look at what the activity was created for when defining an activity.

Karate was created for self defence, the principles and techniques are for self defence so it is a martial art.

So yes you can do a martial art for sport, but the purpose of a martial art isn't sport. If I knock in a nail with my screwdriver it is still a screwdriver. It doesn't make it a hammer.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Personally I look at what the activity was created for when defining an activity.
> 
> Karate was created for self defence, the principles and techniques are for self defence so it is a martial art.
> 
> So yes you can do a martial art for sport, but the purpose of a martial art isn't sport. If I knock in a nail with my screwdriver it is still a screwdriver. It doesn't make it a hammer.


karate was designed for fighting, where have you got the idea t was designed JUST for self defence


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> What do you mean completed with a rule set? As I said it's purpose, not construction, that defines.
> 
> I'm not saying a boxer can't elbow, on the street. In fact following my argument I'm actually saying that if you were boxing as a martial art, there's nothing stopping you from adding elbows to your boxing skill set.
> 
> I'm not sure what it is you feel I'm saying that would limit a boxers behaviour?
> 
> Boxing is a sport and so if you go to learn boxing you will not be taught to elbow as it is against the rules, but people can train how they want. That's pretty much my whole point in this thread!



So basically when you are saying any system can work. You are not actually saying any system. But specific systems.

And we are not even talking about those systems on their own. But those systems that have additional good systems attached.

And by working we are not talking consistent mesurable success. But probably worked somewhere.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> karate was designed for fighting, where have you got the idea t was designed JUST for self defence



This is the most fun part of the discussion. Ask dave what fighting these fighting systems actually do?

Cos fighting systems that dont fight is kind of like me doing the moon walk and calling myself an astronaut.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> This is the most fun part of the discussion. Ask dave what fighting these fighting systems actually do?
> 
> Cos fighting systems that dont fight is kind of like me doing the moon walk and calling myself an astronaut.


there are plenty of karate style tournaments, so at least some of the people fight.
not all the people who attend an mma gym or a boxing gym go on to actual use it in a tounrment


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> there are plenty of karate style tournaments, so at least some of the people fight.
> not all the people who attend an mma gym or a boxing gym go on to actual use it in a tounrment



I dont think any of those are considered styles or fighting in the context of this thread.

That was the reasoning behind why boxers can't wrestle.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> I dont think any of those are considered styles or fighting in the context of this thread.
> 
> That was the reasoning behind why boxers can't wrestle.


Please stop confusing the thread with nonsense.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> karate was designed for fighting, where have you got the idea t was designed JUST for self defence



I didn't write "just", but self defence was as far as all the research can tell, the primary purpose of karate. 

General fighting was kyokushin and it's off shoots. But originally karate was like self defence courses taught by kung fu experts from china that merged with an indigenous fighting style called te. Hence Kara  (chinese) te. Throw in some jujitsu and Japanese training drills and you get the roots of what we call karate today.

Where did you here otherwise?


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> I didn't write "just", but self defence was as far as all the research can tell, the primary purpose of karate.
> 
> General fighting was kyokushin and it's off shoots. But originally karate was like self defence courses taught by kung fu experts from china that merged with an indigenous fighting style called te. Hence Kara  (chinese) te. Throw in some jujitsu and Japanese training drills and you get the roots of what we call karate today.
> 
> Where did you here otherwise?


what's your source for that?


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> So basically when you are saying any system can work. You are not actually saying any system. But specific systems.
> 
> And we are not even talking about those systems on their own. But those systems that have additional good systems attached.
> 
> And by working we are not talking consistent mesurable success. But probably worked somewhere.



You have no argument that actually counters my point so instead you throw muck trying to obfuscate your failure.

Yet it's precisely because of this kind of foolishness that I have to be so specific. 

Your first contribution was to bring up people pretending they had psychic powers. If you will drag a discussion into the gutter on page one what do you expect.

So no, I don't include made up styles that try to win through good vibes. I woukd rathrr i didn't have to waste time with caveats for foolishness but, there you are.

I don't know where you got anything about attaching good systems. I think it's something to do with your complete inability to demonstrate the impact of style over training whole refusing to acknowledge the fact. Thus you conflate statements about training options with your idea of good fighting styles. 

Lastly the criteria for what works. Since there are two people in the fight, I thought seeing a fighter make it a good fight should be enough. After all, nobody wins everyone so why would we expect consistent victory when the other guy could just be better. Also arts like aikido will never havebring fighting objectives so seems a silly measure to apply...

Clearly this is too complex a line of reasoning, so fine, set your criteria at 100 victories in a row before you can accept a style works. What does it matter??? The point was that with improved training there is improved performance, something a 5 yr old could reason out, coupled with the reasoning for why style is virtually unimportant for getting a good fighter. 

None of us are actually going to test the proposition so set whatever b.s. criteria you like...

But here's the thing... You described and advocated my exact point already. You just were so desperate to find a reason to keep style bashing that you didn't notice yourself repeating my argument back to me as if you'd found the chink in my armour at last. 

But instead you conceded this debate. So you can go round and round misrepresenting the discussion, or you can man up and admit you're wrong and move on. I won't judge. Honest.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> what's your source for that?


5- 10 years ago I could have rattled off a long list of sources, but I haven't been into my books and articles since my son came along.

Karate kyohan by Funakoshi points out the Chinese teachers the top masters of the day and the story about the mixing of te with Chinese ma. Richard Kim's book of tales has some stuff about early karate legends. The English translation by Pat McCarthy of choki motobu's book has some good clues as does Funakoshis biography... And I think his name is Richard Clayton did a very good piece if much contested that focussed on bushi matsumura's karate. The list is endless as it's all scattered around in articles and books and interviews.

There is a book that puts it all together but the author is a convicted paedophile so I won't promote it.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> 5- 10 years ago I could have rattled off a long list of sources, but I haven't been into my books and articles since my son came along.
> 
> Karate kyohan by Funakoshi points out the Chinese teachers the top masters of the day and the story about the mixing of te with Chinese ma. Richard Kim's book of tales has some stuff about early karate legends. The English translation by Pat McCarthy of choki motobu's book has some good clues as does Funakoshis biography... And I think his name is Richard Clayton did a very good piece if much contested that focussed on bushi matsumura's karate. The list is endless as it's all scattered around in articles and books and interviews.
> 
> There is a book that puts it all together but the author is a convicted paedophile so I won't promote it.


no I mean your source that karate was created for,self defence and not for attacking people who have really annoyed you


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> no I mean your source that karate was created for,self defence and not for attacking people who have really annoyed you


Yeah, and I have you the beginnings of a long list of sources that when taken together explain that and other aspects of karate's origin and purpose. 

Specifically though Funakoshi goes into detail in karatedo kyohan about when and why tl use karate and choki motobu concluded after years of testing his art and getting beat down by a wrestler that it was simply not designed for fighting in the ring combat sense.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Yeah, and I have you the beginnings of a long list of sources that when taken together explain that and other aspects of karate's origin and purpose.
> 
> Specifically though Funakoshi goes into detail in karatedo kyohan about when and why tl use karate and choki motobu concluded after years of testing his art and getting beat down by a wrestler that it was simply not designed for fighting in the ring combat sense.


so no actual source you can quote

I didn't say anything about ring fighting, just ordinary fighting


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Please stop confusing the thread with nonsense.



You started it by posting this thread. 

Is boxing a style?


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> You have no argument that actually counters my point so instead you throw muck trying to obfuscate your failure.
> 
> Yet it's precisely because of this kind of foolishness that I have to be so specific.
> 
> Your first contribution was to bring up people pretending they had psychic powers. If you will drag a discussion into the gutter on page one what do you expect.
> 
> So no, I don't include made up styles that try to win through good vibes. I woukd rathrr i didn't have to waste time with caveats for foolishness but, there you are.
> 
> I don't know where you got anything about attaching good systems. I think it's something to do with your complete inability to demonstrate the impact of style over training whole refusing to acknowledge the fact. Thus you conflate statements about training options with your idea of good fighting styles.
> 
> Lastly the criteria for what works. Since there are two people in the fight, I thought seeing a fighter make it a good fight should be enough. After all, nobody wins everyone so why would we expect consistent victory when the other guy could just be better. Also arts like aikido will never havebring fighting objectives so seems a silly measure to apply...
> 
> Clearly this is too complex a line of reasoning, so fine, set your criteria at 100 victories in a row before you can accept a style works. What does it matter??? The point was that with improved training there is improved performance, something a 5 yr old could reason out, coupled with the reasoning for why style is virtually unimportant for getting a good fighter.
> 
> None of us are actually going to test the proposition so set whatever b.s. criteria you like...
> 
> But here's the thing... You described and advocated my exact point already. You just were so desperate to find a reason to keep style bashing that you didn't notice yourself repeating my argument back to me as if you'd found the chink in my armour at last.
> 
> But instead you conceded this debate. So you can go round and round misrepresenting the discussion, or you can man up and admit you're wrong and move on. I won't judge. Honest.



That was an incredibly complicated way to say " I am rubber you are glue"

But now we are finished with the hyperbole can we get back to this idea that when you say all systems work. You dont mean all systems.

And you can't realy mesure work.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> so no actual source you can quote
> 
> I didn't say anything about ring fighting, just ordinary fighting


References aren't enough?
Sorry I don't have time to research for you?

Why don't you quote your source then? Where did you learn that karate was for beating up people who irritate you?


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> References aren't enough?
> Sorry I don't have time to research for you?
> 
> Why don't you quote your source then? Where did you learn that karate was for beating up people who irritate you?


its you who is basing a whole very long thread on saying what is and what is not a ma based on its original design purpose, its rather for you to back that up with some reference as to how you have,arrived at your decision. Karate works perfectly well as a tool of aggression, you show it as being only for self defence.

I agree very largely with your original post, maybe not all, but certainly a lot of ma can be very effective fighting tools if trained as such. Why you have got into this, boxing, karate are not ma I don't know, its just,silly and,detracts from your original post


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> its you who is basing a whole very long thread on saying what is and what is not a ma based on its original design purpose, its rather for you to back that up with some reference as to how you have,arrived at your decision. Karate works perfectly well as a tool of aggression, you show it as being only for self defence.
> 
> I agree very largely with your original post, maybe not all, but certainly a lot of ma can be very effective fighting tools if trained as such. Why you have got into this, boxing, karate are not ma I don't know, its just,silly and,detracts from your original post



No I'm not. This what is and isn't ma is a purely tangential issue. It has nothing to do with the main point of the thread beyond what expectations one should have of an activity.

I spent many years researching karate history and application you can take my word for it or better look it up yourself but it's unimportant both to me and to the discussion.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> No I'm not. This what is and isn't ma is a purely tangential issue. It has nothing to do with the main point of the thread beyond what expectations one should have of an activity.
> 
> I spent many years researching karate history and application you can take my word for it or better look it up yourself but it's unimportant both to me and to the discussion.



if its unimportant why did you say karate wasnt a marshal art, based on its original design. That a pretty fundamental  statement made to support you main point,

you appear to  be building a case that all ma,are,effective by just excluding arts that don't fit your view


----------



## DaveB

I never said karate wasn't a martial art, it clearly is.

I said a martial art is an activity created to preserve the user from violence through combat.
I said karate was designed for self defence, what is self defence if not preserving ones self from violence???

Also this is a side point it has nothing to do with my main argument that training determines effectiveness, not style. I don't understand why you are conflating the two points?

The only limiting factor I placed on what was included was that it used conventionally recognised striking or grappling to achieve its aims so as to avoid discussing chi blasts.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> I never said karate wasn't a martial art, it clearly is.
> 
> I said a martial art is an activity created to preserve the user from violence through combat.
> I said karate was designed for self defence, what is self defence if not preserving ones self from violence???
> 
> Also this is a side point it has nothing to do with my main argument that training determines effectiveness, not style. I don't understand why you are conflating the two points?
> 
> The only limiting factor I placed on what was included was that it used cobvwntionally recognised striking or grappling to achieve its aims so as to avoid discussing chi blasts.


you said something along the lines of karate wasn't,a,combat system as it was designed for self defence


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> I never said karate wasn't a martial art, it clearly is.
> 
> I said a martial art is an activity created to preserve the user from violence through combat.
> I said karate was designed for self defence, what is self defence if not preserving ones self from violence???
> 
> Also this is a side point it has nothing to do with my main argument that training determines effectiveness, not style. I don't understand why you are conflating the two points?
> 
> The only limiting factor I placed on what was included was that it used conventionally recognised striking or grappling to achieve its aims so as to avoid discussing chi blasts.


but let's run with your main point, how would you train wing Chun to make it an effective system, with out changing it so much that it is no longer wing chun


----------



## DaveB

DaveB said:


> Personally I look at what the activity was created for when defining an activity.
> 
> *Karate was created for self defence, the principles and techniques are for self defence so it is a martial art.*
> 
> So yes you can do a martial art for sport, but the purpose of a martial art isn't sport. If I knock in a nail with my screwdriver it is still a screwdriver. It doesn't make it a hammer.



This is what I said.

You are going to need to start using the quote function.


----------



## DaveB

I don't train wing chun so I don't know.

A recent discussion here suggested it couldn't fight at range, and I suggested improving footwork drills so the students are faster and better at timing entry and better at evasion when not close in.

Tell me what you think is wrong with wing chun and I'll see what I can come up with.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> I don't train wing chun so I don't know.
> 
> A recent discussion here suggested it couldn't fight at range, and I suggested improving footwork drills so the students are faster and better at timing entry and better at evasion when not close in.
> 
> Tell me what you think is wrong with wing chun and I'll see what I can come up with.


we this is your,claim that any ma can be effective if you train it right, ok pick an art and then tell me how you would training right to make it more effective


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> we this is your,claim that any ma can be effective if you train it right, ok pick an art and then tell me how you would training right to make it more effective



I posted a video that covers this for aikido.
Personally I don't have a problem with any ma style that I've encountered. That's why I posted this thread. 

People see a guy get beaten up and decide it's the style at fault. I'm saying that when a guy gets beaten up if there was a flaw it was in the training.

If you follow my reasoning through this discussion you see that blaming the style doesn't actually make sense. That doesn't make me an expert on every ma style nor do I need to be because the point is that the issue is independent of style.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> I posted a video that covers this for aikido.
> Personally I don't have a problem with any ma style that I've encountered. That's why I posted this thread.
> 
> People see a guy get beaten up and decide it's the style at fault. I'm saying that when a guy gets beaten up if there was a flaw it was in the training.
> 
> If you follow my reasoning through this discussion you see that blaming the style doesn't actually make sense. That doesn't make me an expert on every ma style nor do I need to be because the point is that the issue is independent of style.


so how would you change the training of,aikido to make it effective?


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> so how would you change the training of,aikido to make it effective?


Video


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> so how would you change the training of,aikido to make it effective?


Personally the aikido I've seen has been trained using strike templates rather than actual strikes. So a big lunging punch or a big overhand chop, instead of punching and kicking as people actually do.

Get them training against natural punches and combinations as in the video. Train footwork and expand on their leading skills to draw out bigger punches.

Practice intercepting and blending for much shorter weight shifts and practice how to manage when your opponent resists your locks.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> I posted a video that covers this for aikido.
> Personally I don't have a problem with any ma style that I've encountered. That's why I posted this thread.
> 
> People see a guy get beaten up and decide it's the style at fault. I'm saying that when a guy gets beaten up if there was a flaw it was in the training.
> 
> If you follow my reasoning through this discussion you see that blaming the style doesn't actually make sense. That doesn't make me an expert on every ma style nor do I need to be because the point is that the issue is independent of style.



Exept yellow bamboo, boxing and wreslting. One was magic. And the other two were games.

Go on. Make this work.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Personally the aikido I've seen has been trained using strike templates rather than actual strikes. So a big lunging punch or a big overhand chop, instead of punching and kicking as people actually do.
> 
> Get them training against natural punches and combinations as in the video. Train footwork and expand on their leading skills to draw out bigger punches.
> 
> Practice intercepting and blending for much shorter weight shifts and practice how to manage when your opponent resists your locks.


so when you have done all that is it still aikidio?
you can improve anything if you change it so much it becomes something else, some of the,striking arts can be vastly improved by changing them to MT, that's what I would do to improve wing chun anyway


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> so when you have done all that is it still aikidio?
> you can improve anything if you change it so much it becomes something else, some of the,striking arts can be vastly improved by changing them to MT, that's what I would do to improve wing chun anyway


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> so when you have done all that is it still aikidio?



Yes because you haven't changed any of the principles that make up the art. You've just gotten better at using them.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Yes because you haven't changed any of the principles that make up the art. You've just gotten better at using them.


why do you think all the experienced aikido instructors teach it in a bad way?


----------



## DaveB

I don't.

People teach as they were taught and aikido comes from long before the internet and mma turned every discussion into a style vs style  battle.

I think arts like aikido were not designed for a combat sports arena, hence no aikido tournaments.

For self defence I think Aikido probably does well at least as often as not. Enough to convince those with long term interest.

I wrote this earlier in the thread but it seems relevant here:


DaveB said:


> Person c shakes his head sadly at the lack of critical thinking on display.
> 
> Funny thing is this has happened over and over again but some people refuse to learn the lesson..
> 
> Anyone remember when high kicks were totally impractical and couldn't work in a if like fight?
> 
> Karate was the ma community whipping boy for decades. Totally impractical... before Machida.
> 
> Nobody stops to think why people got these "common sense" assumptions wrong. Or how come despite the endless "evidence" of these things not working, suddenly they work for every Tom Dick or Harry.
> 
> Ultimately this issue of which systems work is about traditional arts most of which are from the 19th century or older.
> The thing with these systems is they were put together when there was no safe way to practice hitting so you couldn't learn from hundreds and hundreds of matches plus thousands of practice fights the way we can with modern combat sports.
> 
> But the fact is if you aim to win fights with punches then any victory by punching validates your art.
> Old battlefield arts like jujitsu were validated on the battlefield or the art died with its student's.
> 
> All that needs to happen is adaptation of training methods and with that adaptation a greater insight into the science of fighting. Insight that was not available to past generations.
> 
> I didn't start this thread to say that nothing needs to change. Clearly lots of people struggle to make use of their fighting styles in the modern environment. But it is just wrong thinking to believe that the style is making bad fight decisions when it's the person employing the style who gets knocked out.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> I don't.
> 
> People teach as they were taught and aikido comes from long before the internet and mma turned every discussion into a style vs style  battle.
> 
> I think arts like aikido were not designed for a combat sports arena, hence no aikido tournaments.
> 
> For self defence I think Aikido probably does well at least as often as not. Enough to convince those with long term interest.
> 
> I wrote this earlier in the thread but it seems relevant here:


well if you cant make vast improvements to the effectiveness,just by a few tweaks, then it fair to conclude that teacher with decades of experience are bad teachers as they haven't done so
what other reasonable conclusion is there


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> well if you cant make vast improvements to the effectiveness,just by a few tweaks, then it fair to conclude that teacher with decades of experience are bad teachers as they haven't done so
> what other reasonable conclusion is there



Which teacher?

I'm discussing my idea of Aikido, but I've never trained the art. I could be completely wrong. It would be arrogant and stupid go label thousands of aikido teachers I've never trained with.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

jobo said:


> well if you cant make vast improvements to the effectiveness,just by a few tweaks, then it fair to conclude that teacher with decades of experience are bad teachers as they haven't done so
> what other reasonable conclusion is there



Until you remember that a lot of "old-school" traditional MA teachers (particularly Chinese and Japanese influenced) believe that any chance to the system at all, no matter how small, is blasphemy of the highest order.


----------



## drop bear

Midnight-shadow said:


> Until you remember that a lot of "old-school" traditional MA teachers (particularly Chinese and Japanese influenced) believe that any chance to the system at all, no matter how small, is blasphemy of the highest order.



All of this kind of breaks the origional concept anyway. If any system can work. Why would we need to change the system.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Which teacher?
> 
> I'm discussing my idea of Aikido, but I've never trained the art. I could be completely wrong. It would be arrogant and stupid go label thousands of aikido teachers I've never trained with.


you put this forward of proof of your claim, now your saying you might be,COMPLETELY wrong about aikidio, where does that leave your claim?


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> I don't.
> 
> People teach as they were taught and aikido comes from long before the internet and mma turned every discussion into a style vs style  battle.



Well, it looks like someone revealed their age, or maybe is so old they forgot the pre internet world..

I'll go with the former. 20s to maybe early 30s?


----------



## Midnight-shadow

drop bear said:


> All of this kind of breaks the origional concept anyway. If any system can work. Why would we need to change the system.



Nothing is ever perfect, and there is always room for improvement. In the past 200 years our knowledge of bio mechanics and physics has improved exponentially and the training should reflect that. This goes not only for Martial Arts but for all physical activities.


----------



## DaveB

Midnight-shadow said:


> Until you remember that a lot of "old-school" traditional MA teachers (particularly Chinese and Japanese influenced) believe that any chance to the system at all, no matter how small, is blasphemy of the highest order.



Some do, and others break away from those and make offshoot schools of the same art.

This is a moot point though because I'm talking about additions to the training not changing the style. 

I've never encountered a martial artist who was averse to using new and different training drills. Every teacher I've trained with has shown me training they got from different sources than their teacher and the few who would wait for their grandmaster to authorise new training at annual seminars were still getting new training just created or found by the grand master.

Different training does not give you a different art unless it is adding elements beyond the scope of the arts principles. 

Nothing I described for aikido does that.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> you put this forward of proof of your claim, now your saying you might be,COMPLETELY wrong about aikidio, where does that leave your claim?


I never made any claim about aikido, i dont train it. 

I was commenting on the aikido I have seen in response to your question. It has nothing to do with the claim about training being key to effectiveness except as an illustration of what you could do if you found a problem. But the issue I described might not be an issue. I don't know enough about the art and it's trends to say.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> Well, it looks like someone revealed their age, or maybe is so old they forgot the pre internet world..
> 
> I'll go with the former. 20s to maybe early 30s?


Still no counter arguments then.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> All of this kind of breaks the origional concept anyway. If any system can work. Why would we need to change the system.



If we were changing its system we would.

Any system can work if you train it right 
Therefore
A system not being trained right
Needs 
To change it's training 
So that it is training right.

See we're talking about the training changing.
Not the system.

Try and keep up.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> If we were changing its system we would.
> 
> Any system can work if you train it right
> Therefore
> A system not being trained right
> Needs
> To change it's training
> So that it is training right.
> 
> See we're talking about the training changing.
> Not the system.
> 
> Try and keep up.


now you have decided that you might be COMPLETELY wrong about aikido, can you give an example of how you would change the training of a particular ma that you are confident about


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> now you have decided that you might be COMPLETELY wrong about aikido, can you give an example of how you would change the training of a particular ma that you are confident about



You seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding me.

I have no problem with the martial arts I have trained. I cannot comment on those I haven't trained, so asking me to refine the training of random martial arts isn't going to work.

You commented that you would change wing chun, so why not tell me what you think is wrong with wing chun and we can consider training options.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> You seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding me.
> 
> I have no problem with the martial arts I have trained. I cannot comment on those I haven't trained, so asking me to refine the training of random martial arts isn't going to work.
> 
> You commented that you would change wing chun, so why not tell me what you think is wrong with wing chun and we can consider training options.


no mate its your claim that ALLarts can be made effective with the right training. but you can't even give one example of how an art could be changed to make it more effective. I'm beginning to think you haven't thought this through before posting


----------



## DaveB

So because I don't have a problem with any particular art...

...that means training does not determine a fighters effectiveness?


----------



## DaveB

Do you think this taekwondo guy:






Trained the same as this taekwondo guy?






...or the same as this taekwondo guy?






Yet they are all tkd. Training.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> Still no counter arguments then.


LOL, ok you missed my point. Fair enough.

Different styles, and even lineages within styles we're downright hostile to one another long before "the internet and mma".

In fact, it was worse because everyone still believed in the mystical and unrealistic ****(as opposed to a smaller number of you with those beliefs today), as nobody was realistically verifying anything.

As per your OP ..it's a smoking wreck, what's left to argue against? Until you can use those mental gymnastics of yours to account for the fact that certain ways of fighting have been shown to work while others have been shown not to(ie if all styles can be effective we should expect to see a more egalitarian distribution of what effective fighters use), there's nothing to really argue. Your just tossing off.

Unless you are saying all these decades deep masters don't know how to train their styles properly? And you know better?

In reality, the scope of what 'works' is rather narrow compared to the myriad of existent styles. This is what the evidence tells us.


----------



## Steve

I'll just say this.  Defining "what works' matters.  In BJJ, for example, deep half guard works.  It's works very, very well... in competition.  It works, but not as well, in MMA.  I've seen some high level MMAists use deep half guard effectively, but they have been wrecked in that position, too.  Deep half guard would not work well at all for a cop. 

I agree that how the training is set up is very important.  But there are two other elements that are equally important. 

Training --> Testing --> Applying

Each one of these should be a direct progression.  You learn techniques, you test your ability to perform the techniques and then you apply the techniques in context.   Testing can be formal or it can be informal.  Sparring is a form of testing.  Promotion ceremonies can be a different form of testing. 

Most, if we're being generous, martial arts styles do a good job training technique. 

Some schools do a pretty good job testing techniques, although a common pitfall is failing to remember that the test needs to be a direct link from the technique to the application.  It's an essential piece of the puzzle. 

Application is all over the board. Some schools and even some entire styles make no effort to link application to anything they do. 

Relating this to the idea of the OP, I don't think we can say for sure that any style can work if you train it right (presuming "works" means improving fighting skill).  However, we can say that, if the training is sound, things that don't "work" in the system will be exposed.  And in some systems, this will be more things than in others.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> LOL, ok you missed my point. Fair enough.
> 
> Different styles, and even lineages within styles we're downright hostile to one another long before "the internet and mma".
> 
> In fact, it was worse because everyone still believed in the mystical and unrealistic ****(as opposed to a smaller number of you with those beliefs today), as nobody was realistically verifying anything.
> 
> As per your OP ..it's a smoking wreck, what's left to argue against? Until you can use those mental gymnastics of yours to account for the fact that certain ways of fighting have been shown to work while others have been shown not to(ie if all styles can be effective we should expect to see a more egalitarian distribution of what effective fighters use), there's nothing to really argue. Your just tossing off.
> 
> Unless you are saying all these decades deep masters don't know how to train their styles properly? And you know better?
> 
> In reality, the scope of what 'works' is rather narrow compared to the myriad of existent styles. This is what the evidence tells us.



Finally, an argument. Well done.

You still haven't refuted any of my positions but we can overlook that in light of your achievement.

So... your saying that there is something implausible about the "deep masters" not having the best training methods.

But at the same time it's totally plausible that they have totally functionless martial arts, including their training.

Ok, ignoring the absurd level of hypocrisy there, I did actually cover this already. Twice.

Once more for the people at the back...

Traditional ma, the real target of your derision, are largely called such because their practice is traditional in transmission, i.e. the techniques and method are passed down in a particular fashion from one generation to the next.

The generations that spawned most of these ma did not have safety equipment that enabled hard practice without injury. Some also had deferential cultures that didn't question the guy above.

They passed down their traditional training methods, some could fight well enough to keep the faith, some just avoided fighting as was and is the ethos of most martial artists.

There wasn't that much cross style interaction because each art valued different skills. Judo took balance, karate looked for the first hit, wing chun did chi sau, etc. There was no reason to doubt what they were doing with all the concessions one had to make to go cross style, creating endless caveats to any loss. My background is karate mainly so I'm very familiar with the excuses.

Meanwhile boxing was benefiting from protective gear, lots of practitioners and lots of safe well monitored sparring.

MMA changed that as the early ufc was the Gracies proclaiming there art to be the best and by your standards proving it. But for some that just didn't matter.

If people like something, like smoking or style bashing or ineffective traditional training, they will make every excuse they can to not admit that the thing they like is not right.

For others they just didn't have the exposure to learn what they could be doing, reinforced by monkey see monkey do training cultures where a prerequisite of deep mystical understanding meant that you needed to be spoon fed by the master.

Karate started going through a renaissance in the 2000s because the internet enabled a small number of people who questioned the disconnect between their forms and their fighting to ignite the curiosity of many.  Coupled with ufc seeming calling the old way into question this has made for a lot of change.

Other arts that have less to question about themselves will be slower to adapt but the shelacking their reps are getting will kick in soon enough.

But let's look at karate for a moment.

You state that the evidence shows that what works is quite a narrow segment of styles. Well karate was one that was pretty much accepted as not working. That changed with Machida, now Connor McGregor is holding up the karate rep and a number of others have been recognised as successful karate guys too.

But according to you that's impossible. The style was proven a dud.

So with that inconsistency gnawing at your point consider this: the evidence is actually showing us that the pool of what works is bigger than we realised.

High kicks, Judo throws, karate... all "proven" unworkable. Until they weren't.

 And this ignorance about what actually works and how to make it work answers your other point. Why don't more fighters use a wider variety of arts? Because guys like you tell them they don't work.

 Young people interested in ufc hear the conventional wisdom and go for what "everyone" says works. So your Thai boxing gyms are full of guys wanting to fight ufc while your kungfu clubs are full of more cerebral fellows. (Yes it's a generalisation but in this environment I have to be allowed at least one).

I've accounted for why some styles seem to work more than others since the first post. But for completeness:

Training determines effectiveness. Some styles have traditional training methods that they adhere to. Those methods are not always effective for cross style sparring. We are just waiting for the traditions to change, like Thai boxing did.

If you want to make wing chun, or any ma work, send the student to a boxing gym or kick boxing gym and let him spar. Assess his mistakes and look for answers within the style. Rinse and repeat. Continuous sparring for learning and development against standard attacks is all it takes to develop most people.


----------



## DaveB

Duplicate


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Duplicate





DaveB said:


> Finally, an argument. Well done.
> 
> You still haven't refuted any of my positions but we can overlook that in light of your achievement.
> 
> So... your saying that there is something implausible about the "deep masters" not having the best training methods.
> 
> But at the same time it's totally plausible that they have totally functionless martial arts, including their training.
> 
> Ok, ignoring the absurd level of hypocrisy there, I did actually cover this already. Twice.
> 
> Once more for the people at the back...
> 
> Traditional ma, the real target of your derision, are largely called such because their practice is traditional in transmission, i.e. the techniques and method are passed down in a particular fashion from one generation to the next.
> 
> The generations that spawned most of these ma did not have safety equipment that enabled hard practice without injury. Some also had deferential cultures that didn't question the guy above.
> 
> They passed down their traditional training methods, some could fight well enough to keep the faith, some just avoided fighting as was and is the ethos of most martial artists.
> 
> There wasn't that much cross style interaction because each art valued different skills. Judo took balance, karate looked for the first hit, wing chun did chi sau, etc. There was no reason to doubt what they were doing with all the concessions one had to make to go cross style, creating endless caveats to any loss. My background is karate mainly so I'm very familiar with the excuses.
> 
> Meanwhile boxing
> 
> MMA changed that as the early ufc was the Gracies proclaiming there art to be the best and by your standards proving it. But for some that just didn't matter.
> 
> If people like something, like smoking or style bashing or ineffective traditional training, they will make every excuse they can to not admit that the thing they like is not right.
> 
> For others they just didn't have the exposure to learn what they could be doing, reinforced by monkey see monkey do training cultures where a prerequisite of deep mystical understanding meant that you needed to be spoon fed by the master.
> 
> Karate started going through a renaissance in the 2000s because the internet enabled a small number of people who questioned the disconnect between their forms and their fighting to ignite the curiosity of many.  Coupled with ufc seeming calling the old way into question this has made for a lot of change.
> 
> Other arts that have less to question about themselves will be slower to adapt but the shelacking their reps are getting will kick in soon enough.
> 
> But let's look at karate for a moment.
> 
> You state that the evidence shows that what works is quite a narrow segment of styles. Well karate was one that was pretty much accepted as not working. That changed with Machida, now Connor McGregor is holding up the karate rep and a number of others have been recognised as successful karate guys too.
> 
> But according to you that's impossible. The style was proven a dud.
> 
> So with that inconsistency gnawing at your point consider this: the evidence is actually showing us that the pool of what works is bigger than we realised.
> 
> High kicks, Judo throws, karate... all "proven" unworkable. Until they weren't.
> 
> And this ignorance about what actually works and how to make it work answers your other point. Why don't more fighters use a wider variety of arts? Because guys like you tell them they don't work.
> 
> Young people interested in ufc hear the conventional wisdom and go for what "everyone" says works. So your Thai boxing gyms are full of guys wanting to fight ufc while your kungfu clubs are full of more cerebral fellows. (Yes it's a generalisation but in this environment I have to be allowed at least one).
> 
> I've accounted for why some styles seem to work more than others since the first post. But for completeness:
> 
> Training determines effectiveness. Some styles have traditional training methods that they adhere to. Those methods are not always effective for cross style sparring. We are just waiting for the traditions to change, like Thai boxing did.
> 
> If you want to make wing chun, or any ma work, send the student to a boxing gym or kick boxing gym and let him spar. Assess his mistakes and look for answers within the style. Rinse and repeat. Continuous sparring for learning and development against standard attacks is all it takes to develop most people.


but then we have come full circle, if a wing chunner goes and,spars with MT fighters, they will over a few months learn how to fight MT fighters. That should indeed have made them a more effective fighter, but what they are now doing won't be recognised at wing chun, particularly by other wing chunners.

so the effectiveness of the fighter will have improved, but he is no longer a chunner,


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> but then we have come full circle, if a wing chunner goes and,spars with MT fighters, they will over a few months learn how to fight MT fighters. That should indeed have made them a more effective fighter, but what they are now doing won't be recognised at wing chun, particularly by other wing chunners.
> 
> so the effectiveness of the fighter will have improved, but he is no longer a chunner,


Sparring with others doesn't change the style you use.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Sparring with others doesn't change the style you use.


it will have to or they will be beaten to a pulp every time, self of preservation will take over and they will change how they fight.
if ecery time they,stand there with their arms out they get kicked in the thigh, they will stop it very quickly


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> it will have to or they will be beaten to a pulp every time, self of preservation will take over and they will change how they fight.
> if ecery time they,stand there with their arms out they get kicked in the thigh, they will stop it very quickly



Bģvtŕèqzxxďçxççģģvģbgťbhgh


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> Finally, an argument. Well done.


Thanks


> You still haven't refuted any of my positions but we can overlook that in light of your achievement.


Says you. Save the condescending attitude for your mom.


> So... your saying that there is something implausible about the "deep masters" not having the best training methods.


If their 'styles' work and they are the ones transmitting said styles through said training, we should expect to see very different results.


> But at the same time it's totally plausible that they have totally functionless martial arts, including their training.


Yes. It's proven that there are complete bullshido out there in the world. Chi balls and no touch ko artists are an extreme end of the spectrum, but it is a spectrum.



> Ok, ignoring the absurd level of hypocrisy there, I did actually cover this already. Twice.


I'm not sure hipocrisy means what you think it means.


> Once more for the people at the back...
> 
> Traditional ma, the real target of your derision, are largely called such because their practice is traditional in transmission, i.e. the techniques and method are passed down in a particular fashion from one generation to the next.
> 
> The generations that spawned most of these ma did not have safety equipment that enabled hard practice without injury. Some also had deferential cultures that didn't question the guy above.
> 
> They passed down their traditional training methods, some could fight well enough to keep the faith, some just avoided fighting as was and is the ethos of most martial artists.
> 
> There wasn't that much cross style interaction because each art valued different skills. Judo took balance, karate looked for the first hit, wing chun did chi sau, etc. There was no reason to doubt what they were doing with all the concessions one had to make to go cross style, creating endless caveats to any loss. My background is karate mainly so I'm very familiar with the excuses.
> 
> Meanwhile boxing was benefiting from protective gear, lots of practitioners and lots of safe well monitored sparring.
> 
> MMA changed that as the early ufc was the Gracies proclaiming there art to be the best and by your standards proving it. But for some that just didn't matter.


Ok, not arguing against that.


> If people like something, like smoking or style bashing or ineffective traditional training, they will make every excuse they can to not admit that the thing they like is not right.


I'm not sure who these hypothetical people are, but it doesn't seem relevant. Certainly not to me.
I'd be delighted if all MAs worked as advertised.



> For others they just didn't have the exposure to learn what they could be doing, reinforced by monkey see monkey do training cultures where a prerequisite of deep mystical understanding meant that you needed to be spoon fed by the master.


Apologetics don't change the reality.



> Karate started going through a renaissance in the 2000s because the internet enabled a small number of people who questioned the disconnect between their forms and their fighting to ignite the curiosity of many.  Coupled with ufc seeming calling the old way into question this has made for a lot of change.


Sure, some karate guys started cross training and learned how to use some of their karate weapons in mma. You could hardly call what Machida, Wonderboy, or even sage are doing in the UFC as pure karate. Influenced by, yes. Borrowed from, yes. But the styles they do are heavily modified, infused with boxing, BJJ, and wrestling...which they wouldn't have had to do if their karate style was enough.



> Other arts that have less to question about themselves will be slower to adapt but the shelacking their reps are getting will kick in soon enough.


If you say so.



> But let's look at karate for a moment.
> 
> You state that the evidence shows that what works is quite a narrow segment of styles. Well karate was one that was pretty much accepted as not working. That changed with Machida, now Connor McGregor is holding up the karate rep and a number of others have been recognised as successful karate guys too.


Addressed above. Calling Conor a karate guy because he likes a wide stance is quite the stretch though isn't it?



> But according to you that's impossible. The style was proven a dud.


I'm sure it's quite useful for staying in shape.



> So with that inconsistency gnawing at your point consider this: the evidence is actually showing us that the pool of what works is bigger than we realised.
> 
> High kicks, Judo throws, karate... all "proven" unworkable. Until they weren't.


No inconsistency here. Also, who proved those techniques don't work? That last bit is a straw man of your own creation.



> And this ignorance about what actually works and how to make it work answers your other point. Why don't more fighters use a wider variety of arts? Because guys like you tell them they don't work.


LOL!

Yes, you can train in whatever you like for years, but of course it won't work if someone tells you it doesn't work. Are you waiting for me to tell you your karate works so it will start working? 50 bucks!



> Young people interested in ufc hear the conventional wisdom and go for what "everyone" says works. So your Thai boxing gyms are full of guys wanting to fight ufc while your kungfu clubs are full of more cerebral fellows. (Yes it's a generalisation but in this environment I have to be allowed at least one).


Ahh, you are revealing your youth again. There was actually a time before mma, when TMA clubs were full of believers. Worked then about the same as it does now.


> I've accounted for why some styles seem to work more than others since the first post. But for completeness:
> 
> Training determines effectiveness. Some styles have traditional training methods that they adhere to. Those methods are not always effective for cross style sparring. We are just waiting for the traditions to change, like Thai boxing did.
> 
> If you want to make wing chun, or any ma work, send the student to a boxing gym or kick boxing gym and let him spar. Assess his mistakes and look for answers within the style. Rinse and repeat. Continuous sparring for learning and development against standard attacks is all it takes to develop most people.



Right, so to make a style work, you must change it to more closely resemble real fighting...which destroys the style and leaves something else(something infinitely more valuable) in it's place.


Do you really find this argument of yours to be convincing?


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Bģvtŕèqzxxďçxççģģvģbgťbhgh


a bit childish there?
you have locked yourself in to a self defeating argument.

traditional ma can't modernise or they will no longer be traditional, wing Chun that doesn't have static silly stances is no longer wing Chun and that the chunners making that rule .
up

and its not just the style that's stuck in a time warp, to improve the effectiveness of any of them you would need to look at the physical fitness they train, as that to is a 100 years out of date


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> Thanks
> 
> Says you. Save the condescending attitude for your mom.
> 
> If their 'styles' work and they are the ones transmitting said styles through said training, we should expect to see very different results.
> 
> Yes. It's proven that there are complete bullshido out there in the world. Chi balls and no touch ko artists are an extreme end of the spectrum, but it is a spectrum.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure hipocrisy means what you think it means.
> 
> Ok, not arguing against that.
> 
> I'm not sure who these hypothetical people are, but it doesn't seem relevant. Certainly not to me.
> I'd be delighted if all MAs worked as advertised.
> 
> 
> Apologetics don't change the reality.
> 
> 
> Sure, some karate guys started cross training and learned how to use some of their karate weapons in mma. You could hardly call what Machida, Wonderboy, or even sage are doing in the UFC as pure karate. Influenced by, yes. Borrowed from, yes. But the styles they do are heavily modified, infused with boxing, BJJ, and wrestling...which they wouldn't have had to do if their karate style was enough.
> 
> 
> If you say so.
> 
> 
> Addressed above. Calling Conor a karate guy because he likes a wide stance is quite the stretch though isn't it?
> 
> 
> I'm sure it's quite useful for staying in shape.
> 
> 
> No inconsistency here. Also, who proved those techniques don't work? That last bit is a straw man of your own creation.
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Yes, you can train in whatever you like for years, but of course it won't work if someone tells you it doesn't work. Are you waiting for me to tell you your karate works so it will start working? 50 bucks!
> 
> 
> Ahh, you are revealing your youth again. There was actually a time before mma, when TMA clubs were full of believers. Worked then about the same as it does now.
> 
> 
> Right, so to make a style work, you must change it to more closely resemble real fighting...which destroys the style and leaves something else(something infinitely more valuable) in it's place.
> 
> 
> Do you really find this argument of yours to be convincing?


So you ask a question. 
I answer.
You read the answer and assume I'm talking about something else, missing the point.

Try rereading my post but remember that training makes effectiveness. 

So when you ask how come the masters haven't trained right and I explain why their training is as it is, that actually is a reason why your not seeing a lot of victorious fighters from said arts. 

Similarly if I say "guys like you tell the world x art doesn't work so people interested in fighting go elsewhere" I'm clearly not saying that your comments make an art ineffective because training is what makes arts effective.

And if I say spar with other people and look for solutions within your style, I'm not saying change the art because training is desperate from fighting style.

You see if you remember the argument your trying to counter you'll at least understand my posts and the discussion can move forward.

What confuses me is why you think sparring with other styles, or learning when to enter or retreat remodels a fighting style?


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> a bit childish there?
> you have locked yourself in to a self defeating argument.
> 
> traditional ma can't modernise or they will no longer be traditional, wing Chun that doesn't have static silly stances is no longer wing Chun and that the chunners making that rule .
> up
> 
> and its not just the style that's stuck in a time warp, to improve the effectiveness of any of them you would need to look at the physical fitness they train, as that to is a 100 years out of date


Sorry about the other reply, I'm on my phone.

Maybe the wing chun people will throw up objections, but all the TMA I've encountered are based upon core principles not fixed positions or movements.

So in karate there are guidelines on how to connect your body and generate power. So long as you are following the principles the strike is a karate strike. TMA are built this way precisely to enable fluidity flexibility and adaptation. 

Maybe wing chun is different, but the 1 chun teacher I know says it's the same. 

But I reiterate, people are not robots. People choose what they train and how. Training against a boxer won't force you to change unless you want to. 

If there is really no answer to a problem in your art that's one thing, but I really doubt that's the case.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Finally, an argument. Well done.
> 
> You still haven't refuted any of my positions but we can overlook that in light of your achievement.
> 
> So... your saying that there is something implausible about the "deep masters" not having the best training methods.
> 
> But at the same time it's totally plausible that they have totally functionless martial arts, including their training.
> 
> Ok, ignoring the absurd level of hypocrisy there, I did actually cover this already. Twice.
> 
> Once more for the people at the back...
> 
> Traditional ma, the real target of your derision, are largely called such because their practice is traditional in transmission, i.e. the techniques and method are passed down in a particular fashion from one generation to the next.
> 
> The generations that spawned most of these ma did not have safety equipment that enabled hard practice without injury. Some also had deferential cultures that didn't question the guy above.
> 
> They passed down their traditional training methods, some could fight well enough to keep the faith, some just avoided fighting as was and is the ethos of most martial artists.
> 
> There wasn't that much cross style interaction because each art valued different skills. Judo took balance, karate looked for the first hit, wing chun did chi sau, etc. There was no reason to doubt what they were doing with all the concessions one had to make to go cross style, creating endless caveats to any loss. My background is karate mainly so I'm very familiar with the excuses.
> 
> Meanwhile boxing was benefiting from protective gear, lots of practitioners and lots of safe well monitored sparring.
> 
> MMA changed that as the early ufc was the Gracies proclaiming there art to be the best and by your standards proving it. But for some that just didn't matter.
> 
> If people like something, like smoking or style bashing or ineffective traditional training, they will make every excuse they can to not admit that the thing they like is not right.
> 
> For others they just didn't have the exposure to learn what they could be doing, reinforced by monkey see monkey do training cultures where a prerequisite of deep mystical understanding meant that you needed to be spoon fed by the master.
> 
> Karate started going through a renaissance in the 2000s because the internet enabled a small number of people who questioned the disconnect between their forms and their fighting to ignite the curiosity of many.  Coupled with ufc seeming calling the old way into question this has made for a lot of change.
> 
> Other arts that have less to question about themselves will be slower to adapt but the shelacking their reps are getting will kick in soon enough.
> 
> But let's look at karate for a moment.
> 
> You state that the evidence shows that what works is quite a narrow segment of styles. Well karate was one that was pretty much accepted as not working. That changed with Machida, now Connor McGregor is holding up the karate rep and a number of others have been recognised as successful karate guys too.
> 
> But according to you that's impossible. The style was proven a dud.
> 
> So with that inconsistency gnawing at your point consider this: the evidence is actually showing us that the pool of what works is bigger than we realised.
> 
> High kicks, Judo throws, karate... all "proven" unworkable. Until they weren't.
> 
> And this ignorance about what actually works and how to make it work answers your other point. Why don't more fighters use a wider variety of arts? Because guys like you tell them they don't work.
> 
> Young people interested in ufc hear the conventional wisdom and go for what "everyone" says works. So your Thai boxing gyms are full of guys wanting to fight ufc while your kungfu clubs are full of more cerebral fellows. (Yes it's a generalisation but in this environment I have to be allowed at least one).
> 
> I've accounted for why some styles seem to work more than others since the first post. But for completeness:
> 
> Training determines effectiveness. Some styles have traditional training methods that they adhere to. Those methods are not always effective for cross style sparring. We are just waiting for the traditions to change, like Thai boxing did.
> 
> If you want to make wing chun, or any ma work, send the student to a boxing gym or kick boxing gym and let him spar. Assess his mistakes and look for answers within the style. Rinse and repeat. Continuous sparring for learning and development against standard attacks is all it takes to develop most people.



The creation argument rehashed.

I dont know does not equal god.

Just because we don't know for sure what works and what doesn't. Does not mean everything works. It means we have to realistically test what works and what doesn't. I am happy with uncertanty. I am not happy with you filling that uncertanty with dogma.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> So you ask a question.
> I answer.
> You read the answer and assume I'm talking about something else, missing the point.
> 
> Try rereading my post but remember that training makes effectiveness.
> 
> So when you ask how come the masters haven't trained right and I explain why their training is as it is, that actually is a reason why your not seeing a lot of victorious fighters from said arts.
> 
> Similarly if I say "guys like you tell the world x art doesn't work so people interested in fighting go elsewhere" I'm clearly not saying that your comments make an art ineffective because training is what makes arts effective.
> 
> And if I say spar with other people and look for solutions within your style, I'm not saying change the art because training is desperate from fighting style.
> 
> You see if you remember the argument your trying to counter you'll at least understand my posts and the discussion can move forward.
> 
> What confuses me is why you think sparring with other styles, or learning when to enter or retreat remodels a fighting style?


Yes yes I know, you think that some styles don't work because evil naysayers like me drive people away from learning them, which is so silly on it's face it deserved a silly answer. Yet, I did point out that things were about the same... actually probably worse because a lot of schools have let mma type stuff slide in under the door...before mma was an acronym for anything.You have to remember, mma evolved out of TMA. If the tma worked mma would never have happened.

Sparring with other styles does not change the style, it changes the fighter. As you realize your big sweeping blocks aren't ever going to work again real punches, or that your karate punch is complete Ineffective against boxing punches, or when you keep getting taken down or punched in the face when you try to flip someone with an extremely low percentage technique like a wrist throw..you evolve or suck forever.


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> Yes yes I know, you think that some styles don't work because evil naysayers like me drive people away from learning them, which is so silly on it's face it deserved a silly answer. Yet, I did point out that things were about the same... actually probably worse because a lot of schools have let mma type stuff slide in under the door...before mma was an acronym for anything.You have to remember, mma evolved out of TMA. If the tma worked mma would never have happened.
> 
> Sparring with other styles does not change the style, it changes the fighter. As you realize your big sweeping blocks aren't ever going to work again real punches, or that your karate punch is complete Ineffective against boxing punches, or when you keep getting taken down or punched in the face when you try to flip someone with an extremely low percentage technique like a wrist throw..you evolve or suck forever.


Learning to apply technique takes time.   I will say that I'm open to the very real possibility that some styles which may not currently "work" could if the practitioners trained with other styles.   I think guys like jowgawolf have the right idea.   Train with wrestlers, but train your technique.   If you are an aikidoka, train your aikido with a wrestler or a MT guy, and don't abandon it.  It will not work at first.  It might never work.   But I guarantee that if you want to be better at aikido, doing aikido against a lot of other people will get you there.


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> But I guarantee that if you want to be better at aikido, doing aikido against a lot of other people will get you there.



And if 'doing aikido against a lot of other people' becomes 'getting ragdolled and smacked around by a lot of people while you keep trying stuff that will never work against them', how long do you keep the faith?


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> The creation argument rehashed.
> 
> I dont know does not equal god.
> 
> Just because we don't know for sure what works and what doesn't. Does not mean everything works. It means we have to realistically test what works and what doesn't. I am happy with uncertanty. I am not happy with you filling that uncertanty with dogma.


13 pages in and your still making up straw men.

Not knowing is not the basis for my argument.

The fact that training (including fitness) is the only fight variable that we can control that has a meaningful impact due to the fact that the relevant core skills needed to win fights are universal to almost all arts, is the basis for my argument.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> 13 pages in and your still making up straw men.
> 
> Not knowing is not the basis for my argument.
> 
> The fact that training (including fitness) is the only fight variable that we can control that has a meaningful impact due to the fact that the relevant core skills needed to win fights are universal to almost all arts, is the basis for my argument.



Wait were you not just saying that isn't the case?

Here for example.
*
You state that the evidence shows that what works is quite a narrow segment of styles. Well karate was one that was pretty much accepted as not working. That changed with Machida, now Connor McGregor is holding up the karate rep and a number of others have been recognised as successful karate guys too.

But according to you that's impossible. The style was proven a dud.*


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> And if 'doing aikido against a lot of other people' becomes 'getting ragdolled and smacked around by a lot of people while you keep trying stuff that will never work against them', how long do you keep the faith?



At last, the one argument that could work as a viable counter. Does a style exist with no combat useable content.

You're on a role!

Well, for the sake of dropbear I did specify arts that used conventionally recognised striking or grappling to achieve their goals, so for the purpose of the discussion the answer should be know. Still it's worth asking the following questions of any martial art. 

If a guy stands there and does not defend himself will the core offensive content of the style do him harm?
Will it do him harm if he tries to protect himself?
Will it do him harm if he tries to resist/fight back?

I consider each of these separately because each is a state you can bring a person to in fighting.

Wing chun works by punching and kicking people. If I time my punch or kick right, according to Bruce Lee, there's no defence against it.

Timing your punch is not a skill specific to any one style. The training to develop timing is not style specific either. Once good timing is acquired it doesn't alter the style but it will make you a better fighter. 

This is why I said earlier, if your style punches and kicks it's a proven style. You just have to get good at the basics.

Now i could be mistaken but I think that some brands of Aikido dont strike at all. That means the question for those styles is can you escape a self defence scenario without striking and only using their joint locks and balance manipulation?

Well one of the reasons the aikido folk I encountered didn't spend time dealing with boxing combinations is that they believed it was only going to be the fully committed "I'm going to kill you" shots launched in the street and that anything more complex was for the ring or a consensual fight. I think there's a degree of truth to that but that it is complacent. 

But it's not that hard to get a boxer to over commit. Lomanchenko uses aikido footwork in  his fights. The training video I posted showed how to use aikido tools to get in on a static combo thrower and take his balance/limb. So it looks hard but doable.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Wait were you not just saying that isn't the case?
> 
> Here for example.
> *
> You state that the evidence shows that what works is quite a narrow segment of styles. Well karate was one that was pretty much accepted as not working. That changed with Machida, now Connor McGregor is holding up the karate rep and a number of others have been recognised as successful karate guys too.
> 
> But according to you that's impossible. The style was proven a dud.*



The two quotes are not remotely exclusive. They are talking about different things but the together as part of the same argument. 

The bold text is me disproving the idea that a style either works or doesn't by highlighting how that changed. The quote box is yet another restatement of the core argument I am making.

So if a style can be made to work after years of being consider a load of junk then there must be some other variable that matters to the successful application of that style. Like how the fighter trains.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> And if 'doing aikido against a lot of other people' becomes 'getting ragdolled and smacked around by a lot of people while you keep trying stuff that will never work against them', how long do you keep the faith?


But to your specific point, faith shouldn't come into it.

If there is a way to make the technique work in the dojo there is a way to make it work on resisting opposition.

Head kicks were useless because a bjj fighter would just take you down.

So throw when he's off balance or back pedalling or out of position.

Jujitsu wrist lock not working kick his shin then head butt him so he's not thinking about the wrist anymore, or move up the arm to the elbow or shoulder.

The point of sparring is not to win but to analyse what you are doing and get better.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> Yes yes I know, you think that some styles don't work because evil naysayers like me drive people away from learning them, which is so silly on it's face it deserved a silly answer. Yet, I did point out that things were about the same... actually probably worse because a lot of schools have let mma type stuff slide in under the door...before mma was an acronym for anything.You have to remember, mma evolved out of TMA. If the tma worked mma would never have happened.


The point was that people who want to fight go to the arts known for fighting. Is that silly?

So when people come on forum saying I want to enter ufc tournaments people here direct them to study taichi? 



> Sparring with other styles does not change the style, it changes the fighter. As you realize your big sweeping blocks aren't ever going to work again real punches, or that your karate punch is complete Ineffective against boxing punches, or when you keep getting taken down or punched in the face when you try to flip someone with an extremely low percentage technique like a wrist throw..you evolve or suck forever.



Right, it changes the fighter.
Step 1. It breaks their daydreams of what they can do and how things work.
Step 2. It forces them to question if some of what they thought about how they use their style is realistic.
Step 3. Bearing in mind most who go through this process are relative beginners, if at this stage you decide "my style doesn't work" and not "I must be missing something" it really says more about you than the art.
Step 4. If you have decided that you may just not be that good, the thing to do is to work out with your sparring partners what you can do different from your style. To drill defending the combinations that catch you until you find what works.

And as someone who has done this, a lot of the time it will be something simple like stepping back and punching or keeping your guard higher or not trying to bridge from too far out etc. Core skills, improved by training.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Sorry about the other reply, I'm on my phone.
> 
> Maybe the wing chun people will throw up objections, but all the TMA I've encountered are based upon core principles not fixed positions or movements.
> 
> So in karate there are guidelines on how to connect your body and generate power. So long as you are following the principles the strike is a karate strike. TMA are built this way precisely to enable fluidity flexibility and adaptation.
> 
> Maybe wing chun is different, but the 1 chun teacher I know says it's the same.
> 
> But I reiterate, people are not robots. People choose what they train and how. Training against a boxer won't force you to change unless you want to.
> 
> If there is really no answer to a problem in your art that's one thing, but I really doubt that's the case.


no people,are not robots, and that's my point, humans have,a,capacity and an advantage over robot( this far but they are working on it) of,adaptive behaviour, we learn through experience at subconscious level, pain being a particularly strong driver in adaptive behaviour.. If we keep doing something and it hurts we will,stop doing it, if it hurts a lot we will stop doing it,sooner.

the robotic type training is the establishment of core principals in MA training,adaptive behaviour is what we change about those,when someone keeps punching us in the,ear, that we have no conscious,choice about that doesn't make us robots it makes us human,and humans,relying on our,subconscious to protect us from harm.
a MT fighter will make mince meat of of a,wing chunner, the human reaction is to change,our programmed movement patterns to protect ourselves, once those have been changed sufficiently to give the,WC a chance, then it,will be,a long way from the,core principals of,WC


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> no people,are not robots, and that's my point, humans have,a,capacity and an advantage over robot( this far but they are working on it) of,adaptive behaviour, we learn through experience at subconscious level, pain being a particularly strong driver in adaptive behaviour.. If we keep doing something and it hurts we will,stop doing it, if it hurts a lot we will stop doing it,sooner.
> 
> the robotic type training is the establishment of core principals in MA training,adaptive behaviour is what we change about those,when someone keeps punching us in the,ear, that we have no conscious,choice about that doesn't make us robots it makes us human,and humans,relying on our,subconscious to protect us from harm.
> a MT fighter will make mince meat of of a,wing chunner, the human reaction is to change,our programmed movement patterns to protect ourselves, once those have been changed sufficiently to give the,WC a chance, then it,will be,a long way from the,core principals of,WC



Or the chun student could analyse what's going wrong and improve his core skills to better make use of his stylistic specialisms. 

Even if what you said was true, not every sparring match is a title fight. Most are low-mid intensity sessions aimed at skill development.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Or the chun student could analyse what's going wrong and improve his core skills to better make use of his stylistic specialisms.
> 
> Even if what you said was true, not every sparring match is a title fight. Most are low-mid intensity sessions aimed at skill development.


but the,core,skill of wing,chun are so substandard that they are beyond a bit of tinkering with. 
that's the problem with your,original premise, if you had said some tma can be,made,effective by changing a few things then you are,correct, karate has tried to modernise by teaching " practical karate" and having dropped a lot of the,silly stuff, its,a lot more effective than it was, but some,arts are so entrenched in bad body mechanics that there is little that can be,done with them, more so that its become a point of honour with them that they won't,change. If it wasn't done that way in 1901 its not being done that way now


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> but the,core,skill of wing,chun are so substandard that they are beyond a bit of tinkering with.
> that's the problem with your,original premise, if you had said some tma can be,made,effective by changing a few things then you are,correct, karate has tried to modernise by teaching " practical karate" and having dropped a lot of the,silly stuff, its,a lot more effective than it was, but some,arts are so entrenched in bad body mechanics that there is little that can be,done with them, more so that its become a point of honour with them that they won't,change. If it wasn't done that way in 1901 its not being done that way now


What is it you think has changed or been dropped in karate?

We will have to disagree here.

I gave the example of timing punches as a universal core skill (as well as other things). They are not style dependent. 

Are the stylistic elements of wing chun totally useless? They never seemed so to me. Since you won't list specific problems here why not start a thread to discuss that point?


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> At last, the one argument that could work as a viable counter. Does a style exist with no combat useable content.
> .


That my friend is what we like to call 'moving the goalposts' What you have moved to here is a totally different question.

A style is a crystalization. Certain movements, certain philosophy, certain biomechanics. A style is a fixed set. Yes you can extract usable techniques from just about any style, but that's different than 'doing the style' because no crystalized style accurately reflect combat. 

Even in mma, pure boxers get murked, pure kickboxers get murked, even pure wrestlers and BJJ men get murked. It's not just TMA guys, the nature of fighting invalidates all crystalizations. This doesn't exactly put them all on equal footing though, the ones that have been successful simply have a greater syllabus of high percentage techniques than those that haven't.

Sure, you can try to milk the stones too, but the juice is unlikely to be worth the squeeze.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> But to your specific point, faith shouldn't come into it.
> 
> If there is a way to make the technique work in the dojo there is a way to make it work on resisting opposition.


Sure. Convince the guy you are fighting to stand there with a loose arm and flip himself when queued. Or throw a slow punch and leave it out there while the guys you are fighting does 3 or four techniques in a row to it. No problem.



> Head kicks were useless because a bjj fighter would just take you down.


Which is still a very real concern. You don't see successful fighters throwing lots of high kicks vs BJJ and wrestling specialists. Not useless, but not high percentage either.




> Jujitsu wrist lock not working kick his shin then head butt him so he's not thinking about the wrist anymore, or move up the arm to the elbow or shoulder.


'If he does this, I'll do that.'

This kind of talk is what has kept bullshido alive. Let's see it.


> The point of sparring is not to win but to analyse what you are doing and get better.


Exactly my point. If what you are doing isn't effective, improve. Why gimp yourself out of loyalty to some archaic 'style'?


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> What is it you think has changed or been dropped in karate?
> 
> We will have to disagree here.
> 
> I gave the example of timing punches as a universal core skill (as well as other things). They are not style dependent.
> 
> Are the stylistic elements of wing chun totally useless? They never seemed so to me. Since you won't list specific problems here why not start a thread to discuss that point?


I didn't say totaly useless, they are useful against other wing chunners and they may very well work against people in the,street, depending of course on the physical atributes of the person on the,street.

what they won't do is hold up against a person of,similar physical atributes that's trained in a style with better movement and body mechanics, and would be of very limited use against a person of far greater physical atributes with little or no formal fight training.

non of which is help by the,some what lapse attitude to physical conditioning that seems prevalent in some of these arts


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> But to your specific point, faith shouldn't come into it.
> 
> If there is a way to make the technique work in the dojo there is a way to make it work on resisting opposition.
> 
> Head kicks were useless because a bjj fighter would just take you down.
> 
> So throw when he's off balance or back pedalling or out of position.
> 
> Jujitsu wrist lock not working kick his shin then head butt him so he's not thinking about the wrist anymore, or move up the arm to the elbow or shoulder.
> 
> The point of sparring is not to win but to analyse what you are doing and get better.


questionable statement here.   I'd say, if it works in the dojo, it might work against a resisting opponent.   But I don't think this is a given.   How you're measuring "works" is also very important.   I mean, will you consider a gimmicky technique that might work once because nobody has seen it before a success, or is the measure a little higher?


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> Exactly my point. If what you are doing isn't effective, improve. Why gimp yourself out of loyalty to some archaic 'style'?



Some people just want to. It's a hobby for most. Unless your aiming for ufc champion, why not? What difference does it make?


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> Some people just want to. It's a hobby for most. Unless your aiming for ufc champion, why not? What difference does it make?


I guess that depends on the goal. Are you doing martial arts for health reasons? For comraderie? To stay in shape? Because you just enjoy the art? 
All perfectly valid reasons.

Or, are you doing ma to build yourself in to as close an approximation of a living weapon as you possibly can?

For the former, no difference. For the latter, all of the difference.


----------



## mograph

We must not be loyal to a style. 
A style is a concept, a construct: something that somebody, or a bunch of people made up over time. 
It has no feelings.

To me, in a martial context, the only question is: *will my next choice make me a better martial artist in the long term?*

(I do understand being loyal to an individual. However, if the student can progress beyond the teacher, then the student can look at the teacher with respect and gratitude, and move on if necessary, in the same way that one would respect someone who taught them, say, elementary physics.)


----------



## DaveB

I don't think loyalty need come into it. 

Sometimes people just enjoy their style.

I will never get on with jujitsu, Japanese or Brazilian. I enjoy the kung fu and tkd I've done and the last few years I've only trained boxing and Thai boxing, but I will always be a karateka. Everything I do is karate even when it's boxing or kungfu.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> questionable statement here.   I'd say, if it works in the dojo, it might work against a resisting opponent.   But I don't think this is a given.   How you're measuring "works" is also very important.   I mean, will you consider a gimmicky technique that might work once because nobody has seen it before a success, or is the measure a little higher?


Nothing works all of the time on all of the people but I would say if something works often in the dojo it should work often outside, providing that you can work out the requirements.

What kind of things do you think could work only on the dojo and not anywhere else?


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Nothing works all of the time on all of the people but I would say if something works often in the dojo it should work often outside, providing that you can work out the requirements.
> 
> What kind of things do you think could work only on the dojo and not anywhere else?


who knows?  That's the point.  This entire discussion is way to loosey goosey.   I get where you're trying to go, and don't entirely disagree.  I just think you speak in absolute terms without acknowledging all of the subjectivity inherent to your argument.

We don't have a common understanding of what is meant by "works."   What does that mean?   Works on whom?  How often does something have to work in order to be deemed effective or successful?  Once?  Twice?  Once against a new guy?  

What's the measurable test for works outside the dojo?   A news clipping?   Use by a pro mma fighter?

Once again, I don't completely disagree, but you can't get in other posters for lack of cogent arguments or for misapplying a premise when you're guilty of some intellectual laziness yourself.


----------



## WhisperingButterfly

What is the difference between a "style" and a "system?" Are they the same? If so, then would not the original "idea" be the the very essence of the "system"--the reason or purpose of its inception? And how could that be understood, as a process of continued growth, for thousands of years? Or perhaps we are so indulged in our own glorious efforts that the only idea left is this thing we call "winning?" 
If "style" and "system" are not the same concept--as in one serving a different purpose--then what would be the purpose of a "style" and why would we entertain such a concept, unless the "style" evolved to counter other "styles," which still does not answer why the idea of "style" in combat formed in essence while continuing to evolve and maintain tradition over thousands of years. 
I feel that these are important questions in my efforts to understand more clearly.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Some people just want to. It's a hobby for most. Unless your aiming for ufc champion, why not? What difference does it make?


agreed, but that doesnt support your original point


WhisperingButterfly said:


> What is the difference between a "style" and a "system?" Are they the same? If so, then would not the original "idea" be the the very essence of the "system"--the reason or purpose of its inception? And how could that be understood, as a process of continued growth, for thousands of years? Or perhaps we are so indulged in our own glorious efforts that the only idea left is this thing we call "winning?"
> If "style" and "system" are not the same concept--as in one serving a different purpose--then what would be the purpose of a "style" and why would we entertain such a concept, unless the "style" evolved to counter other "styles," which still does not answer why the idea of "style" in combat formed in essence while continuing to evolve and maintain tradition over thousands of years.
> I feel that these are important questions in my efforts to understand more clearly.


yes the words are more or less interchangable, style tends  to get used for older systems,and,system gets used for newer styles


----------



## geezer

jobo said:


> ...a MT fighter will make mince meat of of a,wing chunner, the human reaction is to change,our programmed movement patterns to protect ourselves, once those have been changed sufficiently to give the,WC a chance,_ *then it,will be,a long way from the,core principals of,WC*_



I have to disagree with the bolded part quoted above. Yes, you are correct that when adapted for fighting or competition, WC often_ looks _very different from the "classical" posturing we see in the Ip Man movies and many traditional schools, but the core combative principles are not changed so much.

The problem is that so few people train and test their WC realistically, that there isn't a lot to look at. On the WC forum, Sean (Lobo66) is giving it a go, and of course there are Alan Orr's Iron Wolves. Locally here in Phoenix, there is a group called DTE MMA that integrates WC principles effectively into the way they train their fighters. They don't _look _like WC guys... and in fact, they aren't. But they do use many WC _core principles_ effectively and realistically. Probably as they were intended to be used back when WC was actually used for fighting. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## jobo

geezer said:


> I have to disagree with the bolded part quoted above. Yes, you are correct that when adapted for fighting or competition, WC often_ looks _very different from the "classical" posturing we see in the Ip Man movies and many traditional schools, but the core combative principles are not changed so much.
> 
> The problem is that so few people train and test their WC realistically, that there isn't a lot to look at. On the WC forum, Sean (Lobo66) is giving it a go, and of course there are Alan Orr's Iron Wolves. Locally here in Phoenix, there is a group called DTE MMA that integrates WC principles effectively into the way they train their fighters. They don't _look _like WC guys... and in fact, they aren't. But they do use many WC _core principles_ effectively and realistically. Probably as they were intended to be used back when WC was actually used for fighting. Just my 2 cents.


that then begs a big question or two, one,,,,if it doesnt look like WC how do you know it is WC and two,,, what are these core WC Principles and how do I tell them from say lau gar principles


----------



## geezer

jobo said:


> agreed, but that doesnt support your original point
> 
> yes the words are more or less interchangable, style tends  to get used for older systems,and,system gets used for newer styles



On the other hand, sometimes "style" really describes just that--a fashion, appearance or set of mannerisms associated with a particular martial art. Many TCMAs have an identifiable "style". By contrast, the term "system", properly used, describes an organized, interrelation of parts or principles yielding an _integrated_ whole. A truly _systemic_ fighting method is far more than just a "style" of movement.

To your point, modern competitive fighting arts do, by their very nature, evolve into into systems. If a boxer, wrestler, or MT fighter is just training random techniques and not all the essentials of the system, he will not succeed. Older, traditional arts that are not regularly tested for functionality are far more likely to devolve into a mere decorative "style".


----------



## Buka

DaveB said:


> Karate started going through a renaissance in the 2000s because the internet enabled a small number of people who questioned the disconnect between their forms and their fighting to ignite the curiosity of many.  Coupled with ufc seeming calling the old way into question this has made for a lot of change.



Apologies for cherry picking from such a long, detailed post, but for many of us on the East Coast, Karate started going through a renaissance right around nineteen eighty.


----------



## geezer

jobo said:


> that then begs a big question or two, one,,,,if it doesnt look like WC how do you know it is WC and two,,, what are these core WC Principles and how do I tell them from say lau gar principles



Do you really care what it_ looks_ like if it works? What something looks like is a "style" ...good for making movies. What works is a system. An effective system is ...well, _effective!
_
As to what these principles are... If I can use the DTE-MMA group as an example, since I've trained some Escrima with them, I believe that their core principles include:

1. Get an angle
2. Maintain forward intent
3. Diamondpoint
_
Getting an angle_ in relation to your opponent involves using positioning, --footwork, distance, and pressure to get an advantageous angle on your opponent so you are striking to his center, while he is not well aligned to hit you. 

_Forward intent _is pretty self-explanatory. You keep the pressure on, even when retreating. Forward pressure is a more limited application of the same idea.

_Diamondpoint_ is DTE head-coach Martin Torres' term for instantaneous, pin-point transition from one movement to another, or to put it in Wing Chun terms, minimum movement with maximum efficiency.

Beyond these three core principles, there are more, somewhat more specific concepts. One that comes to mind just now is when possible, use _short-power_. That would be to develop proficiency at explosive, short-range, non-telegraphic power generation. Like the one-inch punch. Or, in DTE, like Escrima master Rene Latosa's well known short, powerful punches using principles from boxing and _cadena de mano.
_
Now how you could differentiate these principles from WC, Lau Gar, or Cadena de Mano integrated with MMA in the ring? Hell if I know. They are fighting principles. They should be somewhat universal, right? Maybe that's something we forget when we get too hung up on style.


----------



## jobo

geezer said:


> Do you really care what it_ looks_ like if it works? What something looks like is a "style" ...good for making movies. What works is a system. An effective system is ...well, _effective!
> _
> As to what these principles are... If I can use the DTE-MMA group as an example, since I've trained some Escrima with them, I believe that their core principles include:
> 
> 1. Get an angle
> 2. Maintain forward intent
> 3. Diamondpoint
> _
> Getting an angle_ in relation to your opponent involves using positioning, --footwork, distance, and pressure to get an advantageous angle on your opponent so you are striking to his center, while he is not well aligned to hit you.
> 
> _Forward intent _is pretty self-explanatory. You keep the pressure on, even when retreating. Forward pressure is a more limited application of the same idea.
> 
> _Diamondpoint_ is DTE head-coach Martin Torres' term for instantaneous, pin-point transition from one movement to another, or to put it in Wing Chun terms, minimum movement with maximum efficiency.
> 
> Beyond these three core principles, there are more, somewhat more specific concepts. One that comes to mind just now is when possible, use _short-power_. That would be to develop proficiency at explosive, short-range, non-telegraphic power generation. Like the one-inch punch. Or, in DTE, like Escrima master Rene Latosa's well known short, powerful punches using principles from boxing and _cadena de mano.
> _
> Now how you could differentiate these principles from WC, Lau Gar, or Cadena de Mano integrated with MMA in the ring? Hell if I know. They are fighting principles. They should be somewhat universal, right? Maybe that's something we forget when we get too hung up on style.


no I care what IT looks like if your claiming its based on WC and have no method of evidencing that

if they are as you later suggest just principles of fighting common to a number of arts, then that even more suspicion that what you are seeing is not WC


----------



## Martial D

geezer said:


> Do you really care what it_ looks_ like if it works? What something looks like is a "style" ...good for making movies. What works is a system. An effective system is ...well, _effective!
> _
> As to what these principles are... If I can use the DTE-MMA group as an example, since I've trained some Escrima with them, I believe that their core principles include:
> 
> 1. Get an angle
> 2. Maintain forward intent
> 3. Diamondpoint
> _
> Getting an angle_ in relation to your opponent involves using positioning, --footwork, distance, and pressure to get an advantageous angle on your opponent so you are striking to his center, while he is not well aligned to hit you.
> 
> _Forward intent _is pretty self-explanatory. You keep the pressure on, even when retreating. Forward pressure is a more limited application of the same idea.
> 
> _Diamondpoint_ is DTE head-coach Martin Torres' term for instantaneous, pin-point transition from one movement to another, or to put it in Wing Chun terms, minimum movement with maximum efficiency.
> 
> Beyond these three core principles, there are more, somewhat more specific concepts. One that comes to mind just now is when possible, use _short-power_. That would be to develop proficiency at explosive, short-range, non-telegraphic power generation. Like the one-inch punch. Or, in DTE, like Escrima master Rene Latosa's well known short, powerful punches using principles from boxing and _cadena de mano.
> _
> Now how you could differentiate these principles from WC, Lau Gar, or Cadena de Mano integrated with MMA in the ring? Hell if I know. They are fighting principles. They should be somewhat universal, right? Maybe that's something we forget when we get too hung up on style.


Yes but, if someone does something that looks nothing like a style, ie the movements are different, the hand game is different, the mechanics and power generation are different, regardless of effectiveness, can what he is doing still rightly be described as that style?


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> who knows?  That's the point.  This entire discussion is way to loosey goosey.   I get where you're trying to go, and don't entirely disagree.  I just think you speak in absolute terms without acknowledging all of the subjectivity inherent to your argument.
> 
> We don't have a common understanding of what is meant by "works."   What does that mean?   Works on whom?  How often does something have to work in order to be deemed effective or successful?  Once?  Twice?  Once against a new guy?
> 
> What's the measurable test for works outside the dojo?   A news clipping?   Use by a pro mma fighter?
> 
> Once again, I don't completely disagree, but you can't get in other posters for lack of cogent arguments or for misapplying a premise when you're guilty of some intellectual laziness yourself.



Except that this post is s response to a common attitude. Your questions about what works should as much be directed to those on the other side of the argument.

And while you might think in that kind of detail the people I've taken to task have no such excuse. And the more detail I put the more confused some become. Like when I expanded upon martial D's argument and he accused me of moving the goal posts.

We had fallen into talking about what does and doesn't work from within a style which is a slightly different issue to the point of the thread. I think we would need a thread per style to do that one. Though I am curious: for all the hate wing chun gets, what do you all feel is actually wrong with the art?

Applied to the thread topic proper I feel it's somewhat moot. The premise put simply is that performance is determined by training. What level of performance is irrelevant. If you want to get to that level you must train to that level.


----------



## geezer

jobo said:


> no I care what IT looks like if your claiming its based on WC and have* no method of evidencing that*
> if they are as you later suggest just principles of fighting common to a number of arts, then that *even more suspicion *that what you are seeing is not WC



Evidence? Suspicion? ...Whatever. 

To use the DTE example, if coach Martin says the principles he's working with on a given day come from WC, that's good enough for me. Or, if he says he's pulling them from his boxing background, why would I doubt him? If coach Jeff says what we're doing comes from Pikiti, I'll take him at his word. Usually we find common ground across systems anyway. I don't really see the problem.

As for straight-up VT/WC ...that's what I teach. But cross training with folks like the DTE guys also works for me.


----------



## geezer

Martial D said:


> Yes but, if someone does something that looks nothing like a style, ie the movements are different, the hand game is different, the mechanics and power generation are different, regardless of effectiveness, can what he is doing still rightly be described as that style?



Rightly? Probably not. But I don't lose sleep over it.


----------



## Buka

Looking back, I've never been beaten by a Monkey Style Kung-Fu guy. Probably because I never met a Monkey Style Kung-Fu guy. Just about every other kind of guy has whooped my butt at one time or another, just like I've whooped theirs.

I've never heard a fighter say, "I lost to Tae-Kwon-Do, or Kenpo, American Karate, or even Sinanju". Instead, they've said, "Yeah, that guy beat me." Or whatever.

I've also rarely seen two dojos of the same style train or fight the same way, and I've visited a lot of dojos over the years.

Now, you my make the argument that Style Such and Such would be crap in MMA. But Style Such and Such isn't particularly concerned about MMA. You can even say that Style Such and Such could never beat you. [you in general] But it's not concerned with you, "you" being the highly trained Martial Artist you are. And you may be be right - until an equally tenacious version of you comes along from that style. I've seen that quite a bit over the years.

I agree with the OP.  I think all Styles can work for self defense, _if trained right_. Except for, you know, Monkey Style Kung-Fu.

And if a Monkey guy comes at me, I'm running. Freaks me out how they look like fricken' Monkeys. Shades of those flying suckers from the Wizard of Oz.


----------



## jobo

geezer said:


> Evidence? Suspicion? ...Whatever.
> 
> To use the DTE example, if coach Martin says the principles he's working with on a given day come from WC, that's good enough for me. Or, if he says he's pulling them from his boxing background, why would I doubt him? If coach Jeff says what we're doing comes from Pikiti, I'll take him at his word. Usually we find common ground across systems anyway. I don't really see the problem.
> 
> As for straight-up VT/WC ...that's what I teach. But cross training with folks like the DTE guys also works for me.


you took the time to high light my post to tell me I was WRONG, what coach jeff say has no weight with me, I think it only reasonable that YOU should adequately explain why you think I was wrong. Not tell me what some bloke called Jeff told you


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> you took the time to high light my post to tell me I was WRONG, what coach jeff say has no weight with me, I think it only reasonable that YOU should adequately explain why you think I was wrong. Not tell me what some bloke called Jeff told you


So the guy teaching tells you where he got the thing he's teaching and you're going to tell him "it doesn't matter what you say I want to see proof in how it looks"

Glad to know it's not just me that confuses you.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> So the guy teaching tells you where he got the thing he's teaching and you're going to tell him "it doesn't matter what you say I want to see proof in how it looks"
> 
> Glad to know it's not just me that confuses you.


he said people were using wing Chun very effectively to actual fight but it looks nothing at all like wing Chun, that's deserves an explanation of how he knows its wing Chun, other than some bloke told me it was


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> you took the time to high light my post to tell me I was WRONG, what coach jeff say has no weight with me, I think it only reasonable that YOU should adequately explain why you think I was wrong. Not tell me what some bloke called Jeff told you


Jeff says that you should explain why what he says has no weight with you.  He also thinks your avatar is a little creepy.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Jeff says that you should explain why what he says has no weight with you.  He also thinks your avatar is a little creepy.


its a killer clown, its supposed to be,creepy, I had a creepier one but it was to many pixels, so had to settle for the less creepy one


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Except that this post is s response to a common attitude. Your questions about what works should as much be directed to those on the other side of the argument.
> 
> And while you might think in that kind of detail the people I've taken to task have no such excuse. And the more detail I put the more confused some become. Like when I expanded upon martial D's argument and he accused me of moving the goal posts.
> 
> We had fallen into talking about what does and doesn't work from within a style which is a slightly different issue to the point of the thread. I think we would need a thread per style to do that one. Though I am curious: for all the hate wing chun gets, what do you all feel is actually wrong with the art?
> 
> Applied to the thread topic proper I feel it's somewhat moot. The premise put simply is that performance is determined by training. What level of performance is irrelevant. If you want to get to that level you must train to that level.


Okay.  Last try.  It looks to me like you, Martial D and a few others are all having very specific discussions, without taking the time to ensure you all agree on definitions, much less a common understanding of the premises.  That is all.  Carry on. 

Oh, and I'm not sure, but I don't think I've ever suggested that something is wrong with WC... except the anti-grappling. 

Regarding the premise, I agree that performance is determined by several things, one of which is training.  Another is transfer of knowledge from training to application.  I believe that "if you want to get to that level you must train to that level" is overly simplistic and not always true.  People do things all the time for which they receive poor training.  Happens all the time.  People report to work, are given a manual or some cursory instruction and then are expected to just figure it out.  Sink or swim, as they say.  This goes for physical activities, as well.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> Okay.  Last try.  It looks to me like you, Martial D and a few others are all having very specific discussions, without taking the time to ensure you all agree on definitions, much less a common understanding of the premises.  That is all.  Carry on.
> 
> Oh, and I'm not sure, but I don't think I've ever suggested that something is wrong with WC... except the anti-grappling.
> 
> Regarding the premise, I agree that performance is determined by several things, one of which is training.  Another is transfer of knowledge from training to application.  I believe that "if you want to get to that level you must train to that level" is overly simplistic and not always true.  People do things all the time for which they receive poor training.  Happens all the time.  People report to work, are given a manual or some cursory instruction and then are expected to just figure it out.  Sink or swim, as they say.  This goes for physical activities, as well.


 Then I refer you to the thread title:

...if you train it right


----------



## geezer

jobo said:


> he said people were using wing Chun very effectively to actual fight but it looks nothing at all like wing Chun, that's deserves an explanation of how he knows its wing Chun, other than some bloke told me it was



I said that people were effectively using "core combative principles" from WC. How do I know it's WC? Well for one thing the coaches say it is. Secondly, they show me what they mean. And thirdly, based on my experience as a WC/VT practitioner since 1979 that's ...what 38 years? ...yeah. Based on that I make up my mind. 

Also, I might add, that just because I "disagreed" with you is no reason to get your knickers in a twist. It doesn't mean that you are "WRONG" ...just that we disagree. To a degree anyway. Hell, tomorrow I might change my mind. What's left of it anyway...


----------



## geezer

Steve said:


> Oh, and I'm not sure, but I don't think I've ever suggested that something is wrong with WC.*.. except the anti-grappling.*



Interesting development on that topic. The EWTO --some of the WC/VT/WT people most notorious for their anti-grappling programs emerging in the 80s and 90s to counter the rising popularity of BJJ (imagine that) have finally started promoting a serious, legit grappling program with Gokor Chivichyan and Karen Garabedyan. 

Now why would they do that... unless _you were right all along_ about the appalling inadequacy of their "anti-grappling"! Just sayin'.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Then I refer you to the thread title:
> 
> ...if you train it right



Which implies you are doing a style that works. Because doing something that makes sense is training it right.

Is that your theory?


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> I said that people were effectively using "core combative principles" from WC. How do I know it's WC? Well for one thing the coaches say it is. Secondly, they show me what they mean. And thirdly, based on my experience as a WC/VT practitioner since 1979 that's ...what 38 years? ...yeah. Based on that I make up my mind.
> 
> Also, I might add, that just because I "disagreed" with you is no reason to get your knickers in a twist. It doesn't mean that you are "WRONG" ...just that we disagree. To a degree anyway. Hell, tomorrow I might change my mind. What's left of it anyway...



Is the fighting wing chun in the same way star signs predict the future?

Bits and pieces are right that we can sort of piece together after the fact.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> Is the fighting wing chun in the same way star signs predict the future?
> Bits and pieces are right that we can sort of piece together after the fact.



Let me gat back to you after I review my star chart.


----------



## WhisperingButterfly

Funny how this conversation suddenly turned Wing Chun. Is Wing Chun a style of fighting. Perhaps I should study the Wing Chun thread. Anyway, thanks for all the comments.


----------



## WhisperingButterfly

geezer said:


> I have to disagree with the bolded part quoted above. Yes, you are correct that when adapted for fighting or competition, WC often_ looks _very different from the "classical" posturing we see in the Ip Man movies and many traditional schools, but the core combative principles are not changed so much.
> 
> The problem is that so few people train and test their WC realistically, that there isn't a lot to look at. On the WC forum, Sean (Lobo66) is giving it a go, and of course there are Alan Orr's Iron Wolves. Locally here in Phoenix, there is a group called DTE MMA that integrates WC principles effectively into the way they train their fighters. They don't _look _like WC guys... and in fact, they aren't. But they do use many WC _core principles_ effectively and realistically. Probably as they were intended to be used back when WC was actually used for fighting. Just my 2 cents.



 By MT, are you speaking of Muai Thai? And I've never heard of a "wingchunner". What is that...some newly evolved MMA thing? People, not to be confrontational, but these acronyms and abbreviations are annoying and disrespectful. I seek to study the arts and learn with an open mind. It is not wise to disrespect any art.


----------



## geezer

WhisperingButterfly said:


> By MT, are you speaking of Muai Thai? And I've never heard of a "wingchunner". What is that...some newly evolved MMA thing? People, not to be confrontational, but these acronyms and abbreviations are annoying and disrespectful. I seek to study the arts and learn with an open mind. It is not wise to disrespect any art.



No disrespect intended. You will find that we all tend to fall back on abbreviations to save time in back and forth discussions. If you do a search under _abbreviations_ you will find several threads just on this topic, dating back some 15 years. Off the top of my head, some common abbreviations are:

MA = Martial Arts
TMA =Traditional Martial Arts
JMA = Japanese Martial Arts
KMA = Korean Martial Arts
CMA = Chinese Martial Arts
TCMA =Traditional Chinese Martial Arts
WC = Wing Chun
FMA = Filipino Martial Arts
MT =  Muay Thai
EPK = Ed Parker Kenpo
JKD =Jeet Kuen Do
TKD = Tae Kwon Do
HKD = Hapkido
TSD =Tang Soo Do
MMA = Mixed Martial Arts
HEMA = Historical European Martial Arts

...and the list goes on and on. If you ever encounter an abbreviation that you are unfamiliar with, no problem. Just ask! We are a pretty friendly bunch here.


----------



## drop bear

WhisperingButterfly said:


> By MT, are you speaking of Muai Thai? And I've never heard of a "wingchunner". What is that...some newly evolved MMA thing? People, not to be confrontational, but these acronyms and abbreviations are annoying and disrespectful. I seek to study the arts and learn with an open mind. It is not wise to disrespect any art.



Nobody has time to write mixed martial arts in every sentance though. God forbid we would start discussing the ultimate fighting championship.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> No disrespect intended. You will find that we all tend to fall back on abbreviations to save time in back and forth discussions. If you do a search under _abbreviations_ you will find several threads just on this topic, dating back some 15 years. Off the top of my head, some common abbreviations are:
> 
> MA = Martial Arts
> TMA =Traditional Martial Arts
> JMA = Japanese Martial Arts
> KMA = Korean Martial Arts
> CMA = Chinese Martial Arts
> TCMA =Traditional Chinese Martial Arts
> WC = Wing Chun
> FMA = Filipino Martial Arts
> MT =  Muay Thai
> EPK = Ed Parker Kenpo
> JKD =Jeet Kuen Do
> TKD = Tae Kwon Do
> HKD = Hapkido
> TSD =Tang Soo Do
> MMA = Mixed Martial Arts
> HEMA = Historical European Martial Arts
> 
> ...and the list goes on and on. If you ever encounter an abbreviation that you are unfamiliar with, no problem. Just ask! We are a pretty friendly bunch here.



MT. is also Martial Talk. Just to avoid more confusion.


----------



## WhisperingButterfly

Thank You all for your explanations. My point is this: While i respect the idea of "saving time," I feel that we owe any art the honor and discipline of spelling out the name of said art. I have been studying the Martial Arts for many years, and have aquired a deep respect for the amount of time, discipline, and patience required to evolve and formulate a "new" Martial Art process. Is Martial Art not predicated on hard work and discipline? Furthermore,  is not the practice of such an art (way) developed in all actions? If i were to seek to develop perfect form, would i not seek to maintain such form in all actions and endevors?  I would rather not be sloppy and undisciplined- -although i am traversing the human condition- -that must not continue to be an "exuse"--lest i find myself misconstrued and therefore lost in my way. However, these are modern times and i am i guest here, so i will study and respect your way. That means i must learn those abbreviations! But i will never use them because that is not my way.


----------



## Steve

As the kids say, you do you.


----------



## Jenna

Steve said:


> As the kids say, you do you.


..or YDY


----------



## jobo

WhisperingButterfly said:


> Thank You all for your explanations. My point is this: While i respect the idea of "saving time," I feel that we owe any art the honor and discipline of spelling out the name of said art. I have been studying the Martial Arts for many years, and have aquired a deep respect for the amount of time, discipline, and patience required to evolve and formulate a "new" Martial Art process. Is Martial Art not predicated on hard work and discipline? Furthermore,  is not the practice of such an art (way) developed in all actions? If i were to seek to develop perfect form, would i not seek to maintain such form in all actions and endevors?  I would rather not be sloppy and undisciplined- -although i am traversing the human condition- -that must not continue to be an "exuse"--lest i find myself misconstrued and therefore lost in my way. However, these are modern times and i am i guest here, so i will study and respect your way. That means i must learn those abbreviations! But i will never use them because that is not my way.


I suspect that a night out with you would be a nightmare, the world uses abbreviations, the police use them, the government use them, the martials associations use them about their own art, there is little in the way of disrespect about doing so,


----------



## WhisperingButterfly

jobo said:


> I suspect that a night out with you would be a nightmare, the world uses abbreviations, the police use them, the government use them, the martials associations use them about their own art, there is little in the way of disrespect about doing so,



Well, you will never have to worry about a night out with me . However, to clarify, I was speaking of Martial Arts--Martial Arts that were founded and developed by Martial Art Masters--not MMA or the other things of which you speak. I mean no disrespect to MMA, which is an art in itself, but not a specific art founded by an individual or group of individuals with a specific name indicating a specific meaning. Furthermore, it is nothing more than my opinion--and we know what they say about those;maybe there is an acronym for that--I would definitely use it! I got the information I need (the list of abbreviations), now I am finished with this discussion.


----------



## Martial D

WhisperingButterfly said:


> Thank You all for your explanations. My point is this: While i respect the idea of "saving time," I feel that we owe any art the honor and discipline of spelling out the name of said art. I have been studying the Martial Arts for many years, and have aquired a deep respect for the amount of time, discipline, and patience required to evolve and formulate a "new" Martial Art process. Is Martial Art not predicated on hard work and discipline? Furthermore,  is not the practice of such an art (way) developed in all actions? If i were to seek to develop perfect form, would i not seek to maintain such form in all actions and endevors?  I would rather not be sloppy and undisciplined- -although i am traversing the human condition- -that must not continue to be an "exuse"--lest i find myself misconstrued and therefore lost in my way. However, these are modern times and i am i guest here, so i will study and respect your way. That means i must learn those abbreviations! But i will never use them because that is not my way.


----------



## JP3

WhisperingButterfly said:


> Thank You all for your explanations. My point is this: While i respect the idea of "saving time," I feel that we owe any art the honor and discipline of spelling out the name of said art. I have been studying the Martial Arts for many years, and have aquired a deep respect for the amount of time, discipline, and patience required to evolve and formulate a "new" Martial Art process. Is Martial Art not predicated on hard work and discipline? Furthermore,  is not the practice of such an art (way) developed in all actions? If i were to seek to develop perfect form, would i not seek to maintain such form in all actions and endevors?  I would rather not be sloppy and undisciplined- -although i am traversing the human condition- -that must not continue to be an "exuse"--lest i find myself misconstrued and therefore lost in my way. However, these are modern times and i am i guest here, so i will study and respect your way. That means i must learn those abbreviations! But i will never use them because that is not my way.


For me, the purpose of communication is to convey information, concepts and ideas from one entity to another. If both sides understand the language, e.g. shorthand references, slang terms, acronyms and so forth, the purpose is reached, goal achieved.  Then the next concern is the time it takes for the communication to take place.

For me, I'd rather just talk to a person on the phone, rather than sending tapped-out short-short-long-long-long morse code messages..... and the use of acronyms is parallel.

Life is short, there's no need wasting time, thus life, worrying about something for which the priority of concern is so low.

That's my thought.

Acronym away, just have a key so people can figure it out.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


>



Let's not dog pile the new guy.


----------



## WhisperingButterfly

JP3 said:


> For me, the purpose of communication is to convey information, concepts and ideas from one entity to another. If both sides understand the language, e.g. shorthand references, slang terms, acronyms and so forth, the purpose is reached, goal achieved.  Then the next concern is the time it takes for the communication to take place.
> 
> For me, I'd rather just talk to a person on the phone, rather than sending tapped-out short-short-long-long-long morse code messages..... and the use of acronyms is parallel.
> 
> Life is short, there's no need wasting time, thus life, worrying about something for which the priority of concern is so low.
> 
> That's my thought.
> 
> Acronym away, just have a key so people can figure it out.



Yes, and i agree. However, there ARE certain principles that relate specifically to MA, and while i am willing to adapt, discipline must be maintained as an ongoing process. So when one refers to Jeet Kun Do, ,for example, and the one with a sincere effort to learn say " the concept of intercepting force,"--although Bruce Lee utilized JKD Himself- -How can one draw this conclusion when Jeet Kun Do (the way of the intercepting fist) is simply perceived as "JKD"--and thus such concepts are removed in context by way of modern thought processes.  Perhaps this is why Bruce Lee chose Philosophy as his Major ; He had the "potential" to move in any direction,  and certainly the pressures that would- -in a man without such passion- -simply "cash in." Now we get to hear about how "Bruce Lee utilized his status to promote JKD." That is so far from the truth that it makes me want to puke. The concept of intercepting force is actually quite brilliant,  if one could be disciplined enough to realize and apply such a concept.  The same philosophical process applies to Wing Chun, which has nothing to do with interception and everything to do with form and positioning, contact sensitivity to develop the kinesthetic awareness necessary to understand the neutralization and application of force- -while at the same time liberatiing oneself of the narrow concept of "power"--which seems to be the way of martial arts these days. Wing Chun seeks not this "power"..which ultimately leads to conflict, struggle and the decimation of the natural energies that constitute what we think of as "the human condition. " So be it, as "it" most certainty will be. Only simplicity will ever penetrate complexity. ..perhaps not simplicity as we tend to "know it."


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> Let's not dog pile the new guy.


I don't dog pile, you should probably realize by now I'm not here to try to win friends. I would have responded to that post the same way if we were the only two  users on this board.


----------



## Martial D

WhisperingButterfly said:


> Yes, and i agree. However, there ARE certain principles that relate specifically to MA, and while i am willing to adapt, discipline must be maintained as an ongoing process. So when one refers to Jeet Kun Do, ,for example, and the one with a sincere effort to learn say " the concept of intercepting force,"--although Bruce Lee utilized JKD Himself- -How can one draw this conclusion when Jeet Kun Do (the way of the intercepting fist) is simply perceived as "JKD"--and thus such concepts are removed in context by way of modern thought processes.  Perhaps this is why Bruce Lee chose Philosophy as his Major ; He had the "potential" to move in any direction,  and certainly the pressures that would- -in a man without such passion- -simply "cash in." Now we get to hear about how "Bruce Lee utilized his status to promote JKD." That is so far from the truth that it makes me want to puke. The concept of intercepting force is actually quite brilliant,  if one could be disciplined enough to realize and apply such a concept.  The same philosophical process applies to Wing Chun, which has nothing to do with interception and everything to do with form and positioning, contact sensitivity to develop the kinesthetic awareness necessary to understand the neutralization and application of force- -while at the same time liberatiing oneself of the narrow concept of "power"--which seems to be the way of martial arts these days. Wing Chun seeks not this "power"..which ultimately leads to conflict, struggle and the decimation of the natural energies that constitute what we think of as "the human condition. " So be it, as "it" most certainty will be. Only simplicity will ever penetrate complexity. ..perhaps not simplicity as we tend to "know it."


How did you suddenly become an expert on JKD and WC?


----------



## jobo

WhisperingButterfly said:


> Yes, and i agree. However, there ARE certain principles that relate specifically to MA, and while i am willing to adapt, discipline must be maintained as an ongoing process. So when one refers to Jeet Kun Do, ,for example, and the one with a sincere effort to learn say " the concept of intercepting force,"--although Bruce Lee utilized JKD Himself- -How can one draw this conclusion when Jeet Kun Do (the way of the intercepting fist) is simply perceived as "JKD"--and thus such concepts are removed in context by way of modern thought processes.  Perhaps this is why Bruce Lee chose Philosophy as his Major ; He had the "potential" to move in any direction,  and certainly the pressures that would- -in a man without such passion- -simply "cash in." Now we get to hear about how "Bruce Lee utilized his status to promote JKD." That is so far from the truth that it makes me want to puke. The concept of intercepting force is actually quite brilliant,  if one could be disciplined enough to realize and apply such a concept.  The same philosophical process applies to Wing Chun, which has nothing to do with interception and everything to do with form and positioning, contact sensitivity to develop the kinesthetic awareness necessary to understand the neutralization and application of force- -while at the same time liberatiing oneself of the narrow concept of "power"--which seems to be the way of martial arts these days. Wing Chun seeks not this "power"..which ultimately leads to conflict, struggle and the decimation of the natural energies that constitute what we think of as "the human condition. " So be it, as "it" most certainty will be. Only simplicity will ever penetrate complexity. ..perhaps not simplicity as we tend to "know it."


have you taken time to consider if you take MAa bit to seriously, they should first and foremost be about enjoyment, you know FUN, At the point when your in to considering the human condition its more hair shirt than fun


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> How did you suddenly become an expert on JKD and WC?


hmm yea, it more be a fast,correspondence course, he didn't know what a,style was two days ago


----------



## DaveB

WhisperingButterfly said:


> Yes, and i agree. However, there ARE certain principles that relate specifically to MA, and while i am willing to adapt, discipline must be maintained as an ongoing process. So when one refers to Jeet Kun Do, ,for example, and the one with a sincere effort to learn say " the concept of intercepting force,"--although Bruce Lee utilized JKD Himself- -How can one draw this conclusion when Jeet Kun Do (the way of the intercepting fist) is simply perceived as "JKD"--and thus such concepts are removed in context by way of modern thought processes.  Perhaps this is why Bruce Lee chose Philosophy as his Major ; He had the "potential" to move in any direction,  and certainly the pressures that would- -in a man without such passion- -simply "cash in." Now we get to hear about how "Bruce Lee utilized his status to promote JKD." That is so far from the truth that it makes me want to puke. The concept of intercepting force is actually quite brilliant,  if one could be disciplined enough to realize and apply such a concept.  The same philosophical process applies to Wing Chun, which has nothing to do with interception and everything to do with form and positioning, contact sensitivity to develop the kinesthetic awareness necessary to understand the neutralization and application of force- -while at the same time liberatiing oneself of the narrow concept of "power"--which seems to be the way of martial arts these days. Wing Chun seeks not this "power"..which ultimately leads to conflict, struggle and the decimation of the natural energies that constitute what we think of as "the human condition. " So be it, as "it" most certainty will be. Only simplicity will ever penetrate complexity. ..perhaps not simplicity as we tend to "know it."



What a load of pretentious thread derailing garbage.

I'm sure you mean well but you have no business telling anyone else how to respect martial arts. Especially when that's not the topic of the thread.


----------



## DaveB

Here's a good example of someone who understands how to translate principles to combat situations beyond a style bubble and who recognises that training is not the same as fighting.


----------



## DaveB

...And one more for luck: Different training, same art.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> ...And one more for luck: Different training, same art.


one,) de appears to only show his moves on much smaller females and two) he is justify wing Chun by how much its like boxing if you throw out or the pointless / useless stuff, which begs the question of why they teach it at all if its a) pointless and b) useless


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> one,) de appears to only show his moves on much smaller females and two) he is justify wing Chun by how much its like boxing if you throw out or the pointless / useless stuff, which begs the question of why they teach it at all if its a) pointless and b) useless


1. He's demoing on a partner not trying to prove anything. I'm led to believe that Orr has lots of footage of him and his students sparring. 

2. You and I must have watched completely different videos.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> 1. He's demoing on a partner not trying to prove anything. I'm led to believe that Orr has lots of footage of him and his students sparring.
> 
> 2. You and I must have watched completely different videos.



I'm not really apposed to your view, that all ma,work if you train them right. Just training then right involves dropping a lot of moves and positioning so they are more like boxing or MT.

And that's largely what he is recommending you do with wing chun . Forget the planted stance and silly guard and move like a boxer, but then why not just do boxing in the first place instead of learning movement or in wing China case lack of movement patterns that you then have to unlearn.

I've formed a view that my own art is a lot of filler, that  8 moves more or less covers all eventualities, but at least the movement patterns are good


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> I'm not really apposed to your view, that all ma,work if you train them right. Just training then right involves dropping a lot of moves and positioning so they are more like boxing or MT.
> 
> And that's largely what he is recommending you do with wing chun . Forget the planted stance and silly guard and move like a boxer, but then why not just do boxing in the first place instead of learning movement or in wing China case lack of movement patterns that you then have to unlearn.
> 
> I've formed a view that my own art is a lot of filler, that  8 moves more or less covers all eventualities, but at least the movement patterns are good



I don't think Alan Orr is saying anything like that and niether am I. 

My own view is simply that if what your doing can hit and cause damage (e.g. your art has punches or kicks) then there are core skills you can develop to enable you to land those hits and that these core skills are universal. 

They are things like distancing, positioning, timing and footwork. Almost any technique can be landed if you know how and when to throw it. It's no different to when a pundit analyses how the knockout blow was set up: you create the conditions you need.

That is not a change in fighting style or becoming more like boxing. It is understanding the tools in your art better, and being able to do it in a fight is just about creating alive (ie semi free, natural movement with open responses) drills that let you train with a degree of realism before you get into full sparring.

Alan's videos don't say, "just imitate boxing", they say, "this is how you translate these skills from wing chun training to wing chun fighting".


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> I don't think Alan Orr is saying anything like that and niether am I.
> 
> My own view is simply that if what your doing can hit and cause damage (e.g. your art has punches or kicks) then there are core skills you can develop to enable you to land those hits and that these core skills are universal.
> 
> They are things like distancing, positioning, timing and footwork. Almost any technique can be landed if you know how and when to throw it. It's no different to when a pundit analyses how the knockout blow was set up: you create the conditions you need.
> 
> That is not a change in fighting style or becoming more like boxing. It is understanding the tools in your art better, and being able to do it in a fight is just about creating alive (ie semi free, natural movement with open responses) drills that let you train with a degree of realism before you get into full sparring.
> 
> Alan's videos don't say, "just imitate boxing", they say, "this is how you translate these skills from wing chun training to wing chun fighting".


I don't think you've watched your own videos, in the first one he expressly said, that you do wing chun like boxing to make it effective, fine, then why not just learn boxing, ?


----------



## DaveB

What time reference does he say this?
The video opens with him listing differences between his wing chun and boxing. Then he goes on to explain using wing chun principles and techniques...
Then he goes on to say that people confuse the training of wing chun with the application whivhbis why they think what he does is boxing or lacks wing chun methods.


----------



## DaveB

From 6:35 Alan Orr talks about the application of wing chun with gloves on, referencing principles of the style.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> one,) de appears to only show his moves on much smaller females and two) he is justify wing Chun by how much its like boxing if you throw out or the pointless / useless stuff, which begs the question of why they teach it at all if its a) pointless and b) useless



People kind of think boxing is a style that works. It isn't. It is the result of what works.

So you put people in a similar environment and they will tend to gravitate towards similar methods.

And you see it in every endeavor.  There is a system that just gets better results. Swimming, running, lifting. 

I dont get how martial arts gets some sort of free pass. where anything will work. It just doesnt make sense.


----------



## DaveB

Boxing is a game where what "works" is defined by the rules. Hence the lack of highly effective low roundhouse kicks and RNC's.

The reasoning behind this thread is pretty straight forward but I'll lay it out for you one more time. Now this is simplified so please don't nitpick. 

All fighting styles punch.
Punches are an effective way to injure an adversary.
Landing a punch is based on NON STYLE SPECIFIC SKILLS:
Like timing,
Distancing,
Positioning,
Speed, 
Etc.

Therefore becoming proficient at punching is not dependent on style.
Becoming proficient at punching must therefore be dependent on training.
Training is not the same as a fighting style, it is learning to use a fighting style and though traditional styles have traditional drills and forms, there is not and never was any limitation to what one can include as training.

Thus with no style limitations on training,
And no style limitations on the skills required to land a punch, any style that employs appropriate training will be able to land punches.

Now, rinse and repeat for footwork, dodging, kicking and most other general skills.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Boxing is a game where what "works" is defined by the rules. Hence the lack of highly effective low roundhouse kicks and RNC's.
> 
> The reasoning behind this thread is pretty straight forward but I'll lay it out for you one more time. Now this is simplified so please don't nitpick.
> 
> All fighting styles punch.
> Punches are an effective way to injure an adversary.
> Landing a punch is based on NON STYLE SPECIFIC SKILLS:
> Like timing,
> Distancing,
> Positioning,
> Speed,
> Etc.
> 
> Therefore becoming proficient at punching is not dependent on style.
> Becoming proficient at punching must therefore be dependent on training.
> Training is not the same as a fighting style, it is learning to use a fighting style and though traditional styles have traditional drills and forms, there is not and never was any limitation to what one can include as training.
> 
> Thus with no style limitations on training,
> And no style limitations on the skills required to land a punch, any style that employs appropriate training will be able to land punches.
> 
> Now, rinse and repeat for footwork, dodging, kicking and most other general skills.


but how you punch and therefore how much power can be generated is dictated by style.

sure you can add in a boxing punch if you wish, but that won't be included in your instruction, in tma,

just as you won't be instructed in how to kick at a boxing class

rinse  and repeat , for head movement and footwork


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> Therefore becoming proficient at punching is not dependent on style.


That is true, if we assume all types of punches are roughly equivalent in effectiveness. That would be a difficult argument to make, though, since there is a pretty wide difference in what a punch is, from style to style. The WC punch isn't anything like an NGA punch, which (at most schools) isn't anything like a boxing punch.


----------



## DaveB

gpseymour said:


> That is true, if we assume all types of punches are roughly equivalent in effectiveness. That would be a difficult argument to make, though, since there is a pretty wide difference in what a punch is, from style to style. The WC punch isn't anything like an NGA punch, which (at most schools) isn't anything like a boxing punch.


Absolutely true. 

But, we are only looking for "works", not "most efficient".

A less powerful punch being a deciding factor would mean boxing matches can be decided by whackometer. A fighter can compensate by volume, timing, or in the case of martial arts (as opposed to more limited sports like boxing) use of other weapons like elbows.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Absolutely true.
> 
> But, we are only looking for "works", not "most efficient".
> 
> A less powerful punch being a deciding factor would mean boxing matches can be decided by whackometer. A fighter can compensate by volume, timing, or in the case of martial arts (as opposed to more limited sports like boxing) use of other weapons like elbows.


well , the purpose of punch is to a) knock your opposing number out, or b) set him up for a knock out, therefore if your big punch lands and doesn't have the efficiency to do that, then it doesn't work, it only annoys him


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Boxing is a game where what "works" is defined by the rules. Hence the lack of highly effective low roundhouse kicks and RNC's.
> 
> The reasoning behind this thread is pretty straight forward but I'll lay it out for you one more time. Now this is simplified so please don't nitpick.
> 
> All fighting styles punch.
> Punches are an effective way to injure an adversary.
> Landing a punch is based on NON STYLE SPECIFIC SKILLS:
> Like timing,
> Distancing,
> Positioning,
> Speed,
> Etc.
> 
> Therefore becoming proficient at punching is not dependent on style.
> Becoming proficient at punching must therefore be dependent on training.
> Training is not the same as a fighting style, it is learning to use a fighting style and though traditional styles have traditional drills and forms, there is not and never was any limitation to what one can include as training.
> 
> Thus with no style limitations on training,
> And no style limitations on the skills required to land a punch, any style that employs appropriate training will be able to land punches.
> 
> Now, rinse and repeat for footwork, dodging, kicking and most other general skills.



Ok so what if the movement is in the rules. But nobody successfully uses it?

Then you can pretty much say it doesn't work. You dont see much chain punching and you are allowed to do it. you dont see much hand trapping. But are allowed to do that. All of these things that are supposed to work. But just don't.

(And hand trapping is pretty simple. If i am punching you with two hands. and you are defending with one hand. you are punching me back with one hand. The guy who can use two hands offensively has the advantage

Which is why as soon as the fight goes off being a drill people whose style relies on using this as a primary fighting mechanic get beat up)

I will lay out my counter in its simplified matter. You train to punch in a correct manner. Kind of assumes you can punch in an incorrect manner.

There is a whole bunch of non style specific mechanics that apply to effective punching. But there is no requirement for a style to adhere to those mechanics. A style can make up any punching it wants.

Any timing it wants.
Any distancing it wants
Any positioning it wants
Any speed it wants.

Just because it is a style doesnt mean it has to work.

If you abandon the concept of style then your arguments make more sense. But you are trying to keep the concept of style and keep the concept of fighting mechanics are not dependant on style.

And that is dumb.


----------



## drop bear

Ok. Here we go.
No requirement to adhere to fighting mechanics.

 Use your hip to generate power? Nah screw that.

Pull your hand back to protect your head? What and not be able to chi sau?






Lets just come up with any old idea we want. Because if we train it hard enough our individual atributes will overcome our low percentage concepts.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> but how you punch and therefore how much power can be generated is dictated by style.
> 
> sure you can add in a boxing punch if you wish, but that won't be included in your instruction, in tma,
> 
> just as you won't be instructed in how to kick at a boxing class
> 
> rinse  and repeat , for head movement and footwork



So a given style may or may not have the most efficient or comprehensive methods for the various skills. This is true, but if you want the style to work I argue that you only need to be able to understand how to get the most out of what is there.

Boxing head movement is a great example. It should be almost useless when kicks and takedowns are involved because it fixes your legs leaving your lower body vulnerable to attack. It's a great example of both how the rules (no low blows) shape the game of boxing but also of a skill that is sub-optimal, unless you know how and when to use it. 

No fighting style was handed down by the gods. Every drop of fight knowledge was learned through analyses of what happens both in the ring but more so in training (since we train more than we compete).

Wing chun may not teach head movement like boxing, but in so far as the principles allow, one could through training practices, work out what works for the wing chun practitioner and how to incorporate it.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> So a given style may or may not have the most efficient or comprehensive methods for the various skills. This is true, but if you want the style to work I argue that you only need to be able to understand how to get the most out of what is there.
> 
> Boxing head movement is a great example. It should be almost useless when kicks and takedowns are involved because it fixes your legs leaving your lower body vulnerable to attack. It's a great example of both how the rules (no low blows) shape the game of boxing but also of a skill that is sub-optimal, unless you know how and when to use it.
> 
> No fighting style was handed down by the gods. Every drop of fight knowledge was learned through analyses of what happens both in the ring but more so in training (since we train more than we compete).
> 
> Wing chun may not teach head movement like boxing, but in so far as the principles allow, one could through training practices, work out what works for the wing chun practitioner and how to incorporate it.


but you have no fixed point of comparison, against who or what are your examples fighting, Boxers don't just stand there moving their head, unless they are Floyd M. And certainly not if someone is trying to kick them, that would be silly

wing Chun against any fast and mobile fighter is a dead duck, its never going to work, you can't hit them as they keep moving in and out and round, you can't stop them hitting you as you have no guard worth the name, against some drunk on the,street it may well work, but so will anything else


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

IMO, one of the major differences between the boxing punch and the CMA punch is when you punch your right fist,:

1. boxing - your left fist may be static idle (not moving).
2. CMA (or Karate) punch - you pull your left fist back at the same time (unless you are using left arm to block your opponent's punch).

In the following clip, not sure which approach that he thinks the WC system is using.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> Absolutely true.
> 
> But, we are only looking for "works", not "most efficient".
> 
> A less powerful punch being a deciding factor would mean boxing matches can be decided by whackometer. A fighter can compensate by volume, timing, or in the case of martial arts (as opposed to more limited sports like boxing) use of other weapons like elbows.


I said "effectiveness" not "efficiency". There's a balance of power, range, adaptability, etc. A more powerful punch needs fewer hits. A faster punch needs less power. And so forth. But that still leaves the question of overall effectiveness.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> well , the purpose of punch is to a) knock your opposing number out, or b) set him up for a knock out, therefore if your big punch lands and doesn't have the efficiency to do that, then it doesn't work, it only annoys him


There are more uses for a punch than that. I often use them for off-balancing to set up grappling, for instance. And injuring punches can take a person out of the fight, eventually. Of course, if you meant "knock him out of the fight", then we're on the same page.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> So a given style may or may not have the most efficient or comprehensive methods for the various skills. This is true, but if you want the style to work I argue that you only need to be able to understand how to get the most out of what is there.
> 
> Boxing head movement is a great example. It should be almost useless when kicks and takedowns are involved because it fixes your legs leaving your lower body vulnerable to attack. It's a great example of both how the rules (no low blows) shape the game of boxing but also of a skill that is sub-optimal, unless you know how and when to use it.
> 
> No fighting style was handed down by the gods. Every drop of fight knowledge was learned through analyses of what happens both in the ring but more so in training (since we train more than we compete).
> 
> Wing chun may not teach head movement like boxing, but in so far as the principles allow, one could through training practices, work out what works for the wing chun practitioner and how to incorporate it.


I'm no expert on boxing movement, but I don't think their head movement fixes the legs. It makes them less mobile, perhaps, but they're not stationary. Kicks make the leg (support) far more stationary.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, one of the major differences between the boxing punch and the CMA punch is when you punch your right fist,:
> 
> 1. boxing - your left fist may be static idle (not moving).
> 2. CMA (or Karate) punch - you pull your left fist back at the same time (unless you are using left arm to block your opponent's punch).
> 
> In the following clip, not sure which approach that he thinks the WC system is using.


I consider that a false difference, KFW. Hands can remain at guard, pull back for next strike, or be static, regardless of the system.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I consider that a false difference, KFW. Hands can remain at guard, pull back for next strike, or be static, regardless of the system.


When you punch right hand, you can use your left hand to

- remain guard to protect your head,
- block your opponent's punch,
- guide your opponent's arm away,
- pull your opponent's body toward you,
- ...

When you are "not doing any of the above", you should

- pull your left hand back,
- cause your body "rotation",
- extend your body to the maximum, and
- generate your maximum amount of power into your punch.

IMO, the mind set are different. When a

- boxer thinks about right punch, he thinks about to send right arm out. The body rotation start from right arm out.
- CMA (or Karate) guy thinks about right punch, he thinks about to pull left hand back while send right arm out. The body rotation start from left arm back.

This can be seen in the following clip. You can clear see the sequence of his

- left hand back,
- left shoulder back,
- right shoulder out,
- right hand out.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> but you have no fixed point of comparison, against who or what are your examples fighting, Boxers don't just stand there moving their head, unless they are Floyd M. And certainly not if someone is trying to kick them, that would be silly
> 
> wing Chun against any fast and mobile fighter is a dead duck, its never going to work, you can't hit them as they keep moving in and out and round, you can't stop them hitting you as you have no guard worth the name, against some drunk on the,street it may well work, but so will anything else



Jobo, we will have to agree to disagree. 
I can see no reason why any of your above statements regarding either wing chun or boxing mat be true.

Boxers often present a moving target and in mma fights people are often punished for it. If someone leans their upper body in response to being punched it doesn't take a genius to know to follow your next punch with a kick.

As for wing chun, your idea of the style seems very rigid. There's no rule limiting a chun fighters mobility nor is an extended guard a weakness if you know how to use it. 

Almost all se asian fighting styles defend using strike interception; active defence to enable you to take control of the fight. It may be a harder route and you might need to drop it if your opponent is faster, but it does work if you train it properly.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Ok so what if the movement is in the rules. But nobody successfully uses it?
> 
> Then you can pretty much say it doesn't work. You dont see much chain punching and you are allowed to do it. you dont see much hand trapping. But are allowed to do that. All of these things that are supposed to work. But just don't.
> 
> (And hand trapping is pretty simple. If i am punching you with two hands. and you are defending with one hand. you are punching me back with one hand. The guy who can use two hands offensively has the advantage
> 
> Which is why as soon as the fight goes off being a drill people whose style relies on using this as a primary fighting mechanic get beat up)



I don't completely disagree, except to say that I would question if any style holds trapping as the primary mechanic? 
And as I learned it the point of a trap is to remove a weapon (So you are 1 to 1 not 2 to 1) but also to improve position so that you end up 1 to 0 in practical terms.

This whole thread is based upon the idea that there are optimal ways to use each skill. 
I've not presented my views on style specific methods in this thread because it's about the idea that core combat skills are universal. But if it's true that there's a good time to throw an uppercut and a bad time to throw an uppercut, it stands to reason that the same may be true of trapping or any other style specific skill.

And if that's the case how do you work out when that is? The same way they worked out when to uppercut: trial and error. An analytical approach to sparring
plus patience and humility is all anyone needs to understand their art.



> I will lay out my counter in its simplified matter. You train to punch in a correct manner. Kind of assumes you can punch in an incorrect manner.
> 
> There is a whole bunch of non style specific mechanics that apply to effective punching. But there is no requirement for a style to adhere to those mechanics. A style can make up any punching it wants.
> 
> Any timing it wants.
> Any distancing it wants
> Any positioning it wants
> Any speed it wants.
> 
> Just because it is a style doesnt mean it has to work.
> 
> If you abandon the concept of style then your arguments make more sense. But you are trying to keep the concept of style and keep the concept of fighting mechanics are not dependant on style.
> 
> And that is dumb.



That's all true up until you fail to separate universal concepts from style specific one's. But I've never encountered a fighting style that had any radically (or for that matter even remotely) different views about the core elements of combat.
Close was close, fast was fast, sen no sen was sen no sen (just in a different language).
Maybe that's just my inexperience.

However my argument obviously only works if those core skills are universal. If one style has it's own variations it falls outside of the bounds of my argument. If every style changes those elements then I am just wrong, but I wouldn't have posted if I believed that. 

So now you have clear criteria with which to disprove my case, I look forward to seeing what you find.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - CMA (or Karate) guy thinks about right punch, he thinks about to pull left hand back while send right arm out. The body rotation start from left arm back.


That's not the thought process I learned in Shotokan, nor in the Shotokan-based strikes of NGA. We initially learn to draw the off-hand back when striking, to avoid leaving it out. The motion is initiated on the striking side. This allows the flexibility to choose how to move the off-side.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> That's all true up until you fail to separate universal concepts from style specific one's. But I've never encountered a fighting style that had any radically (or for that matter even remotely) different views about the core elements of combat.
> Close was close, fast was fast, sen no sen was sen no sen (just in a different language).
> Maybe that's just my inexperience.



Doesn't wing chun have a unique striking engine?

Just as an example of an art that just decides its method is better.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Doesn't wing chun have a unique striking engine?
> 
> Just as an example of an art that just decides its method is better.


For power generation yes, but not as far as I know for those universal combative skills that determine whether or not the blow lands.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> The motion is initiated on the striking side. This allows the flexibility to choose how to move the off-side.


The concern is if you initial your punch on the striking side, you only use 1/2 of your body in striking. Your other side is not helping you for power generation.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Doesn't wing chun have a unique striking engine?
> 
> Just as an example of an art that just decides its method is better.


Did someone suggested the "snake engine" before?

The WC power generation is always a question mark in my mind. IMO, if you don't use your whole body (for example, just use your punching side) in power generation, you won't be able to  generate the maximum amount of power.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> For power generation yes, but not as far as I know for those universal combative skills that determine whether or not the blow lands.



If you change the power generation you are going to effect every thing else. Slipping for example relies on rotational movement. Which means you not only change punching power you have to come up with a new delivery system.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Did someone suggested the "snake engine" before?
> 
> The WC power generation is always a question mark in my mind. IMO, if you don't use your whole body (for example, just use your punching side) in power generation, you won't be able to  generate the maximum amount of power.



And you then have to set up your striking style to fit the engine. Boxing's rotational striking incorporates head movement. Head moves off center to rotate a strike. That way you don't have to deal with every incoming strike. The probability is that a reasonable percentage will miss whether you know a shot is coming or not.

Which is probably why chun is so mad keen to catch every single incoming strike with its relevant counter. But is stupidly hard to do.

And this is all engine based.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> If you change the power generation you are going to effect every thing else. Slipping for example relies on rotational movement. Which means you not only change punching power you have to come up with a new delivery system.


Also different power generation will require different footwork. That will affect the whole system as well.


----------



## DaveB

All of the above is true, but none of it changes the universal core elements ie the requirements to land the blow.

Whether I twist from hips, waist or use no twist at all, I still need to know how to get my punch to connect at the point my opponent shifts forwards (timing). I need to be able to keep out of reach and using my timing go from out of reach to uncomfortably close and attack to interrupt his flow  (distancing). I need to be able to retake the initiative be changing angle at the right time (positioning).

As long as the art let's you move your feet and make a choice about when you move or attack then you can master and manipulate these elements with whatever techniques and engines you like.

These are the skills of fighting and they transcend fighting style.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> All of the above is true, but none of it changes the universal core elements ie the requirements to land the blow.
> 
> Whether I twist from hips, waist or use no twist at all, I still need to know how to get my punch to connect at the point my opponent shifts forwards (timing). I need to be able to keep out of reach and using my timing go from out of reach to uncomfortably close and attack to interrupt his flow  (distancing). I need to be able to retake the initiative be changing angle at the right time (positioning).
> 
> As long as the art let's you move your feet and make a choice about when you move or attack then you can master and manipulate these elements with whatever techniques and engines you like.
> 
> These are the skills of fighting and they transcend fighting style.


but you still won't,address the core,weakness in your theory, that being you won't say who it would work against. 
let's say you do what you say and teach a wing Chun man to time his weak punches and move his feet. He is still not going to punch as hard as say a boxer who uses better body mechanics to generate power and has better movement patterns built into his style.

it seems likely then that in any such punching match the boxer will come out best, as he a) punches harder and b) is more,difficult to hit. In that situation its difficult to justify your claim that wing Chun "works"


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The concern is if you initial your punch on the striking side, you only use 1/2 of your body in striking. Your other side is not helping you for power generation.


But it is available for other purposes. I can generate about the same amount of power either way. If I drive off the leg, I don't need (and can't really leverage) off-side rotation. If I want to use the off-side rotation, I can't really use (and don't need) the leg pressure. Driving from the leg gives me more flexibility in delivery.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> All of the above is true, but none of it changes the universal core elements ie the requirements to land the blow.
> 
> Whether I twist from hips, waist or use no twist at all, I still need to know how to get my punch to connect at the point my opponent shifts forwards (timing). I need to be able to keep out of reach and using my timing go from out of reach to uncomfortably close and attack to interrupt his flow  (distancing). I need to be able to retake the initiative be changing angle at the right time (positioning).
> 
> As long as the art let's you move your feet and make a choice about when you move or attack then you can master and manipulate these elements with whatever techniques and engines you like.
> 
> These are the skills of fighting and they transcend fighting style.


I'd say they are more concepts of fighting, if we want to make them universal. There is a different skill to maintaining distance properly for boxing vs. Shotokan vs. WC, IMO.


----------



## oftheherd1

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Did someone suggested the "snake engine" before?
> 
> The WC power generation is always a question mark in my mind. IMO, if you don't use your whole body (for example, just use your punching side) in power generation, you won't be able to  generate the maximum amount of power.



Learning TKD I was taught that to pull the non-striking hand back was part of action/reaction.  Pulling the non-striking hand aided getting power to the striking hand.  Coincidently, if somebody had gotten behind you, your elbow might become a weapon.

In the Hapkido I learned, we did not constantly try to strike with two hands, but we did have techniques that included that.  A two handed strike can have a lot of power if you learn how to put power into it.  That was something I was taught in TKD, how to use the whole body for power generation.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> But it is available for other purposes. I can generate about the same amount of power either way. If I drive off the leg, I don't need (and can't really leverage) off-side rotation. If I want to use the off-side rotation, I can't really use (and don't need) the leg pressure. Driving from the leg gives me more flexibility in delivery.



Regardless of which one has an advantage we are still discussing a systematic advantage.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> If I want to use the off-side rotation, I can't really use (and don't need) the leg pressure.


Why is that?

1. Power come from the leg - bottom to up.
2. Use body rotation - back to front.
3. Send power through your arm.

1 and 2 are not mutual exclusive but one after another. As long as you do 1 first and 2 afterward, there is no conflict.

It's a simple trade off.

- With off-side rotation, you punch can be more powerful.
- Without off-side rotation, you can punch out your off-side faster.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> but you still won't,address the core,weakness in your theory, that being you won't say who it would work against.
> let's say you do what you say and teach a wing Chun man to time his weak punches and move his feet. He is still not going to punch as hard as say a boxer who uses better body mechanics to generate power and has better movement patterns built into his style.
> 
> it seems likely then that in any such punching match the boxer will come out best, as he a) punches harder and b) is more,difficult to hit. In that situation its difficult to justify your claim that wing Chun "works"



Fights are won by fighters not styles. Just because the movement Lomanchenko uses is in boxing that doesn't make every fighter Lomanchenko.

This is why I think the idea of defining whether or not a style works based on winning fights as ludicrous: there will never be a big enough sample studied to draw any conclusions about a win. The winner, whichever style, may just be the better fighter, have better reactions etc.

To my mind the style works if the person fighting isn't making objectively tactically silly mistakes and can mount offence and defence that require skill to beat.

Note this means that the winners style can still fail to "work", though it is less likely.

Also the keen eyed of you will have spotted that anyone appropriately trained in the non style specific core skills I've mentioned should be successful under the above criteria.

That's because any style can work if you train it right.

Lastly, here's a guy trained in the manner I suggest using wing chun to win a boxing match:


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Regardless of which one has an advantage we are still discussing a systematic advantage.


I think I follow you on that one DB. I do think there are advantages and disadvantages to each power delivery, and those may be system-oriented, but even that can vary. I don't think I punch the same way as many in NGA, because I use and teach more than one power generation method. I don't find a specific power generation method as inherent (or, more accurately, inherently unique) within NGA. We move in circles and straight lines, so can generate power both ways. We sometimes unify both sides of the body (so can use the generation method KFW mentions), and sometimes separate them (so can use the method I referred to).

Admittedly, that variation is because we're not primarily a striking art. Within an art with a primary focus on striking, the advantages and disadvantages are probably more inherent in the system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why is that?
> 
> 1. Power come from the leg - bottom to up.
> 2. Use body rotation - back to front.
> 3. Send power through your arm.
> 
> 1 and 2 are not mutual exclusive but one after another. As long as you do 1 first and 2 afterward, there is no conflict.
> 
> It's a simple trade off.
> 
> - With off-side rotation, you punch can be more powerful.
> - Without off-side rotation, you can punch out your off-side faster.


Off-side rotation moves the center around, not from, the driving leg. If I drive from the leg, the leg is the power, and pulling back the off-side isn't necessary, nor particularly beneficial.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Fights are won by fighters not styles. Just because the movement Lomanchenko uses is in boxing that doesn't make every fighter Lomanchenko.
> 
> This is why I think the idea of defining whether or not a style works based on winning fights as ludicrous: there will never be a big enough sample studied to draw any conclusions about a win. The winner, whichever style, may just be the better fighter, have better reactions etc.
> 
> To my mind the style works if the person fighting isn't making objectively tactically silly mistakes and can mount offence and defence that require skill to beat.
> 
> Note this means that the winners style can still fail to "work", though it is less likely.
> 
> Also the keen eyed of you will have spotted that anyone appropriately trained in the non style specific core skills I've mentioned should be successful under the above criteria.
> 
> That's because any style can work if you train it right.
> 
> Lastly, here's a guy trained in the manner I suggest using wing chun to win a boxing match:


which bit of that was supposed to be wing chun? He punched like a boxer, he had a guard like a boxer and his footwork was like a boxer, I've already agreed if you teach a wing chimney boxing he will be a lot better


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> which bit of that was supposed to be wing chun? He punched like a boxer, he had a guard like a boxer and his footwork was like a boxer, I've already agreed if you teach a wing chimney boxing he will be a lot better


You'll have to take it up with Alan Orr. He says he teaches wing chun not boxing.

I've watched a few of Alan's vids now and I can see the elements he mentions that identify the fighting style. 

Here's a challenge for you: find me a video of any style that while fighting with boxing gloves on doesn't look like boxing.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> You'll have to take it up with Alan Orr. He says he teaches wing chun not boxing.
> 
> I've watched a few of Alan's vids now and I can see the elements he mentions that identify the fighting style.
> 
> Here's a challenge for you: find me a video of any style that while fighting with boxing gloves on doesn't look like boxing.


well your posting em up as evidence the least you can do is support them rather than default to ask someone else, 

are you really suggesting that all you need is to  put gloves on to radically  change your style


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> well your posting em up as evidence the least you can do is support them rather than default to ask someone else,
> 
> are you really suggesting that all you need is to  put gloves on to radically  change your style


Heavy gloves will eliminate many small movements that requires light relaxation, and anything that operates on touch-feel. I don't know enough of WC to know if that would change the entire look by eliminating the things that most "look" WC, but I suppose it's possible.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> well your posting em up as evidence the least you can do is support them rather than default to ask someone else,
> 
> are you really suggesting that all you need is to  put gloves on to radically  change your style



Alan Orr has numerous videos explaining why there are differences between what his style looks like in training vs application. I should have said to look them up rather than ask him.

As someone who has studied application vs codification (ie kata) there is no mystery for me.

The fact is that there are only so many ways to punch and not a lot of difference between them. If all you can do is punch in a match, and you have limited space and gloves on stopping you from sticking or grappling and you can't kick, then certain tactics are going to become the only way you can defend yourself. Tactics like holding a high guard or hooking around the opponents guard.

This is because boxing is a game shaped by its rules, not a fighting style.

Boxers don't use the snapping backfist or hammerfist strikes because the rules say you hit with the front of the glove. Boxers don't low kick because kicks aren't allowed. So because of the environment created by these rules the boxer moves, guards and fights in a certain way. 

Conversely a martial art that considers all possible attacks without limitations will move and behave differently. But start applying those game limits and the martial artist must adapt to the new environment. 
So yes, to a degree, putting on gloves changes the style and the more boxing limits you add the more boxing like the style "should" become to adapt.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Alan Orr has numerous videos explaining why there are differences between what his style looks like in training vs application. I should have said to look them up rather than ask him.
> 
> As someone who has studied application vs codification (ie kata) there is no mystery for me.
> 
> The fact is that there are only so many ways to punch and not a lot of difference between them. If all you can do is punch in a match, and you have limited space and gloves on stopping you from sticking or grappling and you can't kick, then certain tactics are going to become the only way you can defend yourself. Tactics like holding a high guard or hooking around the opponents guard.
> 
> This is because boxing is a game shaped by its rules, not a fighting style.
> 
> Boxers don't use the snapping backfist or hammerfist strikes because the rules say you hit with the front of the glove. Boxers don't low kick because kicks aren't allowed. So because of the environment created by these rules the boxer moves, guards and fights in a certain way.
> 
> Conversely a martial art that considers all possible attacks without limitations will move and behave differently. But start applying those game limits and the martial artist must adapt to the new environment.
> So yes, to a degree, putting on gloves changes the style and the more boxing limits you add the more boxing like the style "should" become to adapt.


so all those really rubbish martial arts have to do is put on gloves and they are transformed into good fighters. You should tell them


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

DaveB said:


> find me a video of any style that while fighting with boxing gloves on doesn't look like boxing.


With gloves on, you may still be able to do Beng, but you won't be able to do Tan and Fu. Also it's difficult to use Tan Da to separate your opponent's arms and take his center (IMO, this is one of the WC main skills). Your gloves are just too big that your arms cannot go through the space between your opponent's arms. If you don't have sharp drill head, you won't be able to drill a hole.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> so all those really rubbish martial arts have to do is put on gloves and they are transformed into good fighters. You should tell them


You do realize that's not what he said, right?


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> You do realize that's not what he said, right?


its a reasonable interpretation, put gloves on and you cant do all those silly low % moves, so you have to learn to move and punch properly , its close enough


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> its a reasonable interpretation, put gloves on and you cant do all those silly low % moves, so you have to learn to move and punch properly , its close enough


What he discussed was what changes are necessary for the gloves, not that the gloves made them magically skilled.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> so all those really rubbish martial arts have to do is put on gloves and they are transformed into good fighters. You should tell them


That's not even remotely close to what I said.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> What he discussed was what changes are necessary for the gloves, not that the gloves made them magically skilled.


the gloves cut out the trapping etal, as soon as you lose all the nonsense techniques they are more skilled


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> the gloves cut out the trapping etal, as soon as you lose all the nonsense techniques they are more skilled


That's not how skill works.

A skill or a level of skill is something you acquire. You don't get more of something by getting rid of something else (except space).

Rather than continuing down this nonsensical misrepresentation of my point why not just re-read the post?

It's pretty straightforward: you adapt to your environment. A boxing ring and the limitations of boxing rules constitute a different environment than the one wing chun was created for, so you adapt.

Nothing about magic or skill, just reasons why things change in a boxing match or mma bout or street fight etc.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think I follow you on that one DB. I do think there are advantages and disadvantages to each power delivery, and those may be system-oriented, but even that can vary. I don't think I punch the same way as many in NGA, because I use and teach more than one power generation method. I don't find a specific power generation method as inherent (or, more accurately, inherently unique) within NGA. We move in circles and straight lines, so can generate power both ways. We sometimes unify both sides of the body (so can use the generation method KFW mentions), and sometimes separate them (so can use the method I referred to).
> 
> Admittedly, that variation is because we're not primarily a striking art. Within an art with a primary focus on striking, the advantages and disadvantages are probably more inherent in the system.



What we call the paper rock sissors effect. Or mohumid ali's rope a dope where his system defeated a better indiviual. (or at leats what is popularly believed)


Now we can assume all these different systems kind of even out. Or even out depending on the user. But there is no reason for that. Some will but some will just be more efficient across the board. At this point we can look at styles like systema. Whith whatever notion makes them think this works.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> That's not how skill works.
> 
> A skill or a level of skill is something you acquire. You don't get more of something by getting rid of something else (except space).
> 
> Rather than continuing down this nonsensical misrepresentation of my point why not just re-read the post?
> 
> It's pretty straightforward: you adapt to your environment. A boxing ring and the limitations of boxing rules constitute a different environment than the one wing chun was created for, so you adapt.
> 
> Nothing about magic or skill, just reasons why things change in a boxing match or mma bout or street fight etc.



Boxers are generally better than your average rooftop thug though.





So if we are going to wax lyrical about design. Wing Chun wasn't designed to handle anywhere near the complexity of a boxer.

And so people understand what I am presenting in this video. These towns dont produce soft men.
Fred Brophy, the last boxing tent showman - ABC North West Qld - Australian Broadcasting Corporation


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Boxers are generally better than your average rooftop thug though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we are going to wax lyrical about design. Wing Chun wasn't designed to handle anywhere near the complexity of a boxer.
> 
> And so people understand what I am presenting in this video. These towns dont produce soft men.
> Fred Brophy, the last boxing tent showman - ABC North West Qld - Australian Broadcasting Corporation



Boxing wasn't designed. It's a game that people trained to get really good at. Because it was accessible and popular and competetive you got a greater variety of competitors and a faster trial and error weeding process for what worked within the confines of the game.

Now just because I call it a game doesn't mean I don't respect it, I very much do. But it's a different animal to a martial art. There are a lot of plusses to boxing, in fact I think boxing should be considered basic training for all striking arts because it's the best training tool for using the hands. But the limits it has mean that martial arts represent an increase in sophistication and complexity.

The problem you see of TMAists getting beat up by boxers is a combination of those practitioners having forgotten the basics of combat on which boxing is based, and of the limitations of the arena in which the tmaists are fighting and most importantly the unevolved training that they are using.

The last is the most important point because through training exercises like boxing we put ourselves through that weeding process, but not for our techniques; we were out our misconceptions about combat and so relearn those basics which in turn help us understand how to adapt to new environments which will inform how we train for those environments... and round and round it goes.

Training is key. Training is all.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Boxing wasn't designed. It's a game that people trained to get really good at. Because it was accessible and popular and competetive you got a greater variety of competitors and a faster trial and error weeding process for what worked within the confines of the game.
> 
> Now just because I call it a game doesn't mean I don't respect it, I very much do. But it's a different animal to a martial art. There are a lot of plusses to boxing, in fact I think boxing should be considered basic training for all striking arts because it's the best training tool for using the hands. But the limits it has mean that martial arts represent an increase in sophistication and complexity.
> 
> The problem you see of TMAists getting beat up by boxers is a combination of those practitioners having forgotten the basics of combat on which boxing is based, and of the limitations of the arena in which the tmaists are fighting and most importantly the unevolved training that they are using.
> 
> The last is the most important point because through training exercises like boxing we put ourselves through that weeding process, but not for our techniques; we were out our misconceptions about combat and so relearn those basics.



Your misconception there is you think street fighting is not a game. I mean yes anything could happen. And you could get any fighter up there on that roof top.

But honestly you probably won't. What you get is still a pretty insular environment with your martial art adapting to handle a relatively small gene pool of fighters.

Which is essentially how these boxing tents can go from town to town and not get killed by every hard man that comes along. These street fighters are still working within their own confines. In this case are limited by their training and their competition.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> That's not how skill works.
> 
> A skill or a level of skill is something you acquire. You don't get more of something by getting rid of something else (except space).
> 
> Rather than continuing down this nonsensical misrepresentation of my point why not just re-read the post?
> 
> It's pretty straightforward: you adapt to your environment. A boxing ring and the limitations of boxing rules constitute a different environment than the one wing chun was created for, so you adapt.
> 
> Nothing about magic or skill, just reasons why things change in a boxing match or mma bout or street fight etc.


well yes you do, i stopped trying to use my chatting up girls skills whilst playing poker, i was immediately more skilled at poker.
i stopped using my dancing skill when trying to pick up girls and got better at picking up girls, 

some times less is more and that particularly applies to wing chun


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> the gloves cut out the trapping etal, as soon as you lose all the nonsense techniques they are more skilled


The first half is what he said. The second half is your invention.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> Rather than continuing down this nonsensical misrepresentation of my point why not just re-read the post?


Jobo doesn't do that.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Boxing wasn't designed. It's a game that people trained to get really good at. Because it was accessible and popular and competetive you got a greater variety of competitors and a faster trial and error weeding process for what worked within the confines of the game.
> 
> Now just because I call it a game doesn't mean I don't respect it, I very much do. But it's a different animal to a martial art. There are a lot of plusses to boxing, in fact I think boxing should be considered basic training for all striking arts because it's the best training tool for using the hands. But the limits it has mean that martial arts represent an increase in sophistication and complexity.
> 
> The problem you see of TMAists getting beat up by boxers is a combination of those practitioners having forgotten the basics of combat on which boxing is based, and of the limitations of the arena in which the tmaists are fighting and most importantly the unevolved training that they are using.
> 
> The last is the most important point because through training exercises like boxing we put ourselves through that weeding process, but not for our techniques; we were out our misconceptions about combat and so relearn those basics which in turn help us understand how to adapt to new environments which will inform how we train for those environments... and round and round it goes.
> 
> Training is key. Training is all.



The game concept gets really complicated. Lets see if I can expand on it.

Ok one of the ways the street fighing as a game is shown is in the training. 

Have you ever seen the riturals of violence? this has come about to address what are essentially rules of street fights. Have you noticed that self defence instruction really only tends to adress one style of fighter? Again we have this indication of a closed system.

A street system is as much a victim to the concept of a closed system as a sport. And where a sport will generally train you to deal with a variety of systems a street system will generally let you only deal with one.

Street fighting as a game with commonalities is as relevant to boxing as a game with comonalities. Rules, or whatever.

So we have seen people adopt this game idea to street fighting successfully. Eg. Boxing.






wrestling.





Bjj.





Tkd.





Each person has their game with their rules and the street fighter does whatever the hell he wants. Yet the game still works under these real street conditions. The idea that there is some sort of non comparable method to street fighting specifically is kind of bunk. And I am sorry about that because it is going to be a bit hard to swallow if you have belived the RSBD rhetoric.






Now this moves towards you concept that all styles work. But that is still bunk. There is more than one way to fight is nothing like all styles work. Somone out there is still training yellow bamboo.


----------



## drop bear

And all of the above hinges on this.






Ok this is a game. But they are knocked out for real. That game punch with rules, with a ref, with padding and warning and warm ups and ring girls and walkout music and all the things that made these fights different to street fights. 

Sill ended one guys ability to attack the other guy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What we call the paper rock sissors effect. Or mohumid ali's rope a dope where his system defeated a better indiviual. (or at leats what is popularly believed)
> 
> 
> Now we can assume all these different systems kind of even out. Or even out depending on the user. But there is no reason for that. Some will but some will just be more efficient across the board. At this point we can look at styles like systema. Whith whatever notion makes them think this works.


I had my wife translate the first part of that (she's Ukrainian). What a horrible miss-application of principles from one point to another (he starts by talking about the relaxation/tension pattern of using a hammer, then applies that to empty hand).

Anyway, agreed. There are some "even out" areas between styles. But it's not everything. Some things actually work better than other things, and some styles have more of the "other things".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Boxers are generally better than your average rooftop thug though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we are going to wax lyrical about design. Wing Chun wasn't designed to handle anywhere near the complexity of a boxer.
> 
> And so people understand what I am presenting in this video. These towns dont produce soft men.
> Fred Brophy, the last boxing tent showman - ABC North West Qld - Australian Broadcasting Corporation


I think it's fair to say that there are some arts that haven't adapted to account for modern western boxing. I can't authoritatively say whether WC is one of those, but lack of adaptation is a risk for any art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> Boxing wasn't designed. It's a game that people trained to get really good at. Because it was accessible and popular and competetive you got a greater variety of competitors and a faster trial and error weeding process for what worked within the confines of the game.
> 
> Now just because I call it a game doesn't mean I don't respect it, I very much do. But it's a different animal to a martial art. There are a lot of plusses to boxing, in fact I think boxing should be considered basic training for all striking arts because it's the best training tool for using the hands. But the limits it has mean that martial arts represent an increase in sophistication and complexity.
> 
> The problem you see of TMAists getting beat up by boxers is a combination of those practitioners having forgotten the basics of combat on which boxing is based, and of the limitations of the arena in which the tmaists are fighting and most importantly the unevolved training that they are using.
> 
> The last is the most important point because through training exercises like boxing we put ourselves through that weeding process, but not for our techniques; we were out our misconceptions about combat and so relearn those basics which in turn help us understand how to adapt to new environments which will inform how we train for those environments... and round and round it goes.
> 
> Training is key. Training is all.


The "game" of boxing wasn't designed, but the modern style that dominates in boxing was. Over time, some very good, analytical people designed an approach that works far more often than other approaches.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> well yes you do, i stopped trying to use my chatting up girls skills whilst playing poker, i was immediately more skilled at poker.
> i stopped using my dancing skill when trying to pick up girls and got better at picking up girls,
> 
> some times less is more and that particularly applies to wing chun


And this applies to the post in question, precisely how?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The game concept gets really complicated. Lets see if I can expand on it.
> 
> Ok one of the ways the street fighing as a game is shown is in the training.
> 
> Have you ever seen the riturals of violence? this has come about to address what are essentially rules of street fights. Have you noticed that self defence instruction really only tends to adress one style of fighter? Again we have this indication of a closed system.
> 
> A street system is as much a victim to the concept of a closed system as a sport. And where a sport will generally train you to deal with a variety of systems a street system will generally let you only deal with one.
> 
> Street fighting as a game with commonalities is as relevant to boxing as a game with comonalities. Rules, or whatever.
> 
> So we have seen people adopt this game idea to street fighting successfully. Eg. Boxing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrestling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bjj.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tkd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each person has their game with their rules and the street fighter does whatever the hell he wants. Yet the game still works under these real street conditions. The idea that there is some sort of non comparable method to street fighting specifically is kind of bunk. And I am sorry about that because it is going to be a bit hard to swallow if you have belived the RSBD rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now this moves towards you concept that all styles work. But that is still bunk. There is more than one way to fight is nothing like all styles work. Somone out there is still training yellow bamboo.


I can't quite agree with your point that a "street system" will only prepare you for one kind of fighter. What do you base that conclusion on?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think it's fair to say that there are some arts that haven't adapted to account for modern western boxing. I can't authoritatively say whether WC is one of those, but lack of adaptation is a risk for any art.



You don't know what you are going to face in boxing. Is could be any tactic by any fighter. Or it could be any tactic by the same fighter at different times.

It is like those wing chun vs videos. But with real people.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I can't quite agree with your point that a "street system" will only prepare you for one kind of fighter. What do you base that conclusion on?



That I have never seen evidence of self defence comprehensively dealing with different styles of fighting.






I have seen evidence of self defence instuctors telling people what a street fighter will probably do.







And look I have done street systems. And that has been my experience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You don't know what you are going to face in boxing. Is could be any tactic by any fighter. Or it could be any tactic by the same fighter at different times.
> 
> It is like those wing chun vs videos. But with real people.


Boxing has some commonalities among _most_ fighters, so there's some predictability. Of course, you still have to be good enough to recognize and deal with it, even if they fit into the common mold. Not easy with most boxers.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And this applies to the post in question, precisely how?



It is about efficiency.

He is describing bruce lees clasical mess.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> That I have never seen evidence of self defence comprehensively dealing with different styles of fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen evidence of self defence instuctors telling people what a street fighter will probably do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And look I have done street systems. And that has been my experience.


I do talk about common reactions (that is common in competition approaches, too - you discuss some of the most common responses), but I also talk about what you do if that doesn't happen. Just yesterday, I was discussing the difference in approach if you get a skilled striker (like a boxer), as opposed to a common redneck (pretty common where I am), versus dealing with someone who has some experience with wrestling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is about efficiency.
> 
> He is describing bruce lees clasical mess.


I'm not sure that's what he's talking about - he seems to be drawing an equivalency between muscle fibre training/development and combining flirting with other activities.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure that's what he's talking about - he seems to be drawing an equivalency between muscle fibre training/development and combining flirting with other activities.



There is a whole bunch of things in martial arts that would be cool if you can pull them off. And there is a whole bunch of basics you resort to when you don't want your head punched in.

This is pretty much why the cover system exists. It is nowhere near as cool as trapping or counter punching but it is super safety. For me street fights is about super safety. And like poker. You flirt with the girls after you win the hand.

Trapping does work in boxing gloves. To the point that trapping works at all. which is a bit. I mean there are places you can use it. But a whole defence system of trapping is ambitious.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There is a whole bunch of things in martial arts that would be cool if you can pull them off. And there is a whole bunch of basics you resort to when you don't want your head punched in.
> 
> This is pretty much why the cover system exists. It is nowhere near as cool as trapping or counter punching but it is super safety. For me street fights is about super safety. And like poker. You flirt with the girls after you win the hand.
> 
> Trapping does work in boxing gloves. To the point that trapping works at all. which is a bit. I mean there are places you can use it. But a whole defence system of trapping is ambitious.


I agree that a whole system based on trapping is making a dangerous assumption. And cover should be (IMO) part of every complete system. It's like of like a hip throw or a single-leg takedown. It's some basic stuff, and should be in there, if the system is intended to be even kinda complete.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> And all of the above hinges on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok this is a game. But they are knocked out for real. That game punch with rules, with a ref, with padding and warning and warm ups and ring girls and walkout music and all the things that made these fights different to street fights.
> 
> Still ended one guys ability to attack the other guy.



There's a reason that I didn't mention street fighting in my posts. That's because it's not the be all and end all of violence.

I actually believe in a progression of threat level where untrained thug is on the bottom rung and the top level is something like a squad of armed soldiers. Now very few ma schools ever go that far, but clearly you and I have different experiences if "rooftop" thugs (wherever that is) are all you feel ma are for.

I get where you're coming from but DropBear there are too many false assumptions to even go over. RBSD is b.s. because they don't spar?? Don't they? And even if that's true that means no other training method is ever effective?

I'm not disputing the effectiveness of boxing. I'm just saying that martial arts are built with different stuff in mind hence they do things differently. 

For example most TMA are not prepared for grapplers because it's not a sensible way to fight. Your bjj streetfight vid confirms it because in every case people come over to the smooching couple and intervene. It's only luck that those interlopers weren't violent to the defenceless grappler. 

Boxing should be where striking arts start. Remember my post about control and starting people off in heavy gloves and armour. Well that's where boxing comes in. Lessen the armour as their technique and control are refined and bring the student more out of the limits of the game and more into the refinements of the martial art.

From boxing, to kick boxing, to Thai boxing, to mma, to martial arts.


----------



## Red Sun

drop bear said:


> Your misconception there is you think street fighting is not a game. I mean yes anything could happen. And you could get any fighter up there on that roof top.
> 
> But honestly you probably won't. What you get is still a pretty insular environment with your martial art adapting to handle a relatively small gene pool of fighters.
> 
> Which is essentially how these boxing tents can go from town to town and not get killed by every hard man that comes along. These street fighters are still working within their own confines. In this case are limited by their training and their competition.



Oh, man. Tonight we had a new guy come into the gym who said he'd been in a few 'rough and tumbles.' His jab > haymaker combo wasn't bad at all, i'd say he could beat the crap out of someone, but he was out of breath after A MINUTE of light sparring... and he wasn't even getting hit back...


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> There's a reason that I didn't mention street fighting in my posts. That's because it's not the be all and end all of violence.
> 
> I actually believe in a progression of threat level where untrained thug is on the bottom rung and the top level is something like a squad of armed soldiers. Now very few ma schools ever go that far, but clearly you and I have different experiences if "rooftop" thugs (wherever that is) are all you feel ma are for.
> 
> I get where you're coming from but DropBear there are too many false assumptions to even go over. RBSD is b.s. because they don't spar?? Don't they? And even if that's true that means no other training method is ever effective?
> 
> I'm not disputing the effectiveness of boxing. I'm just saying that martial arts are built with different stuff in mind hence they do things differently.
> 
> For example most TMA are not prepared for grapplers because it's not a sensible way to fight. Your bjj streetfight vid confirms it because in every case people come over to the smooching couple and intervene. It's only luck that those interlopers weren't violent to the defenceless grappler.
> 
> Boxing should be where striking arts start. Remember my post about control and starting people off in heavy gloves and armour. Well that's where boxing comes in. Lessen the armour as their technique and control are refined and bring the student more out of the limits of the game and more into the refinements of the martial art.
> 
> From boxing, to kick boxing, to Thai boxing, to mma, to martial arts.



 The roof top fights were where wing chun developed. That was chun's game pretty much. It developed to deal with a certain kind of situation. Just like boxing is developed to deal with a certain kind of situation. 

Ok. lets look at your progression.


"From boxing, to kick boxing, to Thai boxing, to mma, to martial arts."

If someone worked through that I would be pretty confident what they did works.

If they get mauled in boxing. Then they need to put more work i to their system.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I do talk about common reactions (that is common in competition approaches, too - you discuss some of the most common responses), but I also talk about what you do if that doesn't happen. Just yesterday, I was discussing the difference in approach if you get a skilled striker (like a boxer), as opposed to a common redneck (pretty common where I am), versus dealing with someone who has some experience with wrestling.



Yeah but what sort of boxer were you discussing. Or was it just some sort of generic boxer.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah but what sort of boxer were you discussing. Or was it just some sort of generic boxer.


Pretty much a generic boxer. I don't have the expertise to break down the subcategories - what I know I picked up from my first NGA instructor (a former Golden Gloves boxer). If I want to drive deeper, I need a boxer or boxing coach involved.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I can't quite agree with your point that a "street system" will only prepare you for one kind of fighter. What do you base that conclusion on?


I'm not even sure there is a street system, lots of people fight much the same way, that is badly, people who have developed an effective street system have done so over time, usually after learning from getting a kicking or two and have developed a method that suits their physical attributes. If they are strong they like to brawl if they are fast they like to punch and move or some such


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> I'm not even sure there is a street system, lots of people fight much the same way, that is badly, people who have developed an effective street system have done so over time, usually after learning from getting a kicking or two and have developed a method that suits their physical attributes. If they are strong they like to brawl if they are fast they like to punch and move or some such


I think DB was using the term "street system" to refer to those of us who train folks for self-defense "in the street" (our common term for the opposite of "in the dojo"). DB can correct me if I've misunderstood that.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> I'm not even sure there is a street system, lots of people fight much the same way, that is badly, people who have developed an effective street system have done so over time, usually after learning from getting a kicking or two and have developed a method that suits their physical attributes. If they are strong they like to brawl if they are fast they like to punch and move or some such



Yeah but street fighters don't really get out much either. You tend to face pretty much the same guys.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think DB was using the term "street system" to refer to those of us who train folks for self-defense "in the street" (our common term for the opposite of "in the dojo"). DB can correct me if I've misunderstood that.



Not really I am treating the street pretty much as a sport. It is definable and there are rules.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Not really I am treating the street pretty much as a sport. It is definable and there are rules.


Such as what?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not really I am treating the street pretty much as a sport. It is definable and there are rules.


Okay, how are you defining the common usages on the street, and what rules are you referring to?


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Okay, how are you defining the common usages on the street, and what rules are you referring to?


the rules are, that you are allowed to kick people when they are on the floor, no rounds and weapons are allowed


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Okay, how are you defining the common usages on the street, and what rules are you referring to?



We have all the imaginary ones like.
You can't kick at the head. You can't go the the ground or hit with a closed fist and you can't duel with knives.

And then we have the physics ones like if you punch a guy in a certain manner they will stop punching you. If I move at an angle he then can only attack with certain angles and weapons.

And then we have the ritual rules like what sets a guy off and how they will act at that point.

Or how a criminal may set up an ambush


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> We have all the imaginary ones like.
> You can't kick at the head. You can't go the the ground or hit with a closed fist and you can't duel with knives.


Okay, but those, as you point out, don't actually exist.



> And then we have the physics ones like if you punch a guy in a certain manner they will stop punching you. If I move at an angle he then can only attack with certain angles and weapons.


Okay, so basic mechanics - no different from what we deal with in the dojo or in competitions.



> And then we have the ritual rules like what sets a guy off and how they will act at that point.
> 
> Or how a criminal may set up an ambush


Those are probably the ones that are notable for the street. There are some "rules" - not universal, but reasonably predictable.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Okay, but those, as you point out, don't actually exist.
> 
> 
> Okay, so basic mechanics - no different from what we deal with in the dojo or in competitions.
> 
> 
> Those are probably the ones that are notable for the street. There are some "rules" - not universal, but reasonably predictable.



Regardless. If we are going to make a distinction of sport/street. then rules isn't really a good one.

I mean usually it is a way of promoting a methodology without ever having to support it with evidence. If you can't box then boxing isn't an applicable test.

Or as the Mc Map guy said on fight Quest. "Randy couture might beat me in the cage. But out here I would have the upper hand"


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Regardless. If we are going to make a distinction of sport/street. then rules isn't really a good one.
> 
> I mean usually it is a way of promoting a methodology without ever having to support it with evidence. If you can't box then boxing isn't an applicable test.
> 
> Or as the Mc Map guy said on fight Quest. "Randy couture might beat me in the cage. But out here I would have the upper hand"


Rules do create a difference, though. An elite BJJ fighter won't do well under boxing rules unless he has also trained for that, or at least for something that creates some more similar (than BJJ competition) situations. And the reverse is true.

I think the "there's no rules in the street" argument gets overblown and over used, but it's a valid part of the difference. The lack of rules does make it different, though compared to some competition, it's a difference of degrees, not orders of magnitude.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Rules do create a difference, though. An elite BJJ fighter won't do well under boxing rules unless he has also trained for that, or at least for something that creates some more similar (than BJJ competition) situations. And the reverse is true.
> 
> I think the "there's no rules in the street" argument gets overblown and over used, but it's a valid part of the difference. The lack of rules does make it different, though compared to some competition, it's a difference of degrees, not orders of magnitude.



But. And this is my point. You are not traveling the world fighting people. You have the limited amount of people who actually are going to attack you. So with a limited set of people to fight you still get a conformity. 

So your attacks and defences that become part of your street system is still only relevent to a certain subset of fighting.

Which is a clever way of saying if you cant fight and they cant fight then who cares if you are are winning. You still are not very good. And if your system is designed to beat these guys who cant fight. Your sytem isn't very good.

Alternatively if you are competing on an international stage you probably are very good. 

It has very little to do with boxers for example punching each other with gloves or whatever and therefore making it difficult for these people who cant fundimentally fight to use their whole systems.

They are basically poorer exponents of fighting.


----------



## DaveB

Those aren't rules, they are assumptions. Some may be bad assumptions, but they are just devices for teaching, like coming up with defences against common acts of violence (HAPV).

They certainly don't change the fact that boxing is a consequence of its rules.

 I was sparring at my muay thai class with a guy who wasn't kicking, so we boxed. It was an entirely different game to fighting with people who could kick and knee if I weaved too low.

 Its different again to mma where takedowns are a risk, which is different again to real life where a guy might pull a knife or have friends to back him up and where excessive force or lack of awareness of the environment might put you in jail.

I totally agree that mastery of these sports is one of the best ways to develop practical useable repeatable fighting ability, but this denial of the practical differences in the environment is so delusional that you sound no different to the traditionalists who are too deadly to spar.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> But. And this is my point. You are not traveling the world fighting people. You have the limited amount of people who actually are going to attack you. So with a limited set of people to fight you still get a conformity.
> 
> So your attacks and defences that become part of your street system is still only relevent to a certain subset of fighting.
> 
> Which is a clever way of saying if you cant fight and they cant fight then who cares if you are are winning. You still are not very good. And if your system is designed to beat these guys who cant fight. Your sytem isn't very good.
> 
> Alternatively if you are competing on an international stage you probably are very good.
> 
> It has very little to do with boxers for example punching each other with gloves or whatever and therefore making it difficult for these people who cant fundimentally fight to use their whole systems.
> 
> They are basically poorer exponents of fighting.


I'm still not sure where this fit into the discussion, DB. Did I miss a swerve?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm still not sure where this fit into the discussion, DB. Did I miss a swerve?



OK. So originally the idea is boxing ,in this case,is a manufactured environment. And so when you throw a system that is not meant to be chained down by rules into an environment that is. They are so hampered by this that they perform badly. This is not because they fundamentally perform badly. But because that is not the environment they are designed to perform in.

Imagine putting a shark in a running race with a turtle. The shark while being way more awesome. Looses due it being out of water.

But a street fighting system is also chained by the small amount of exposure that has been used to develop its system. So if I go out to the pub and bash ten guys. The chances of those ten guys being of an ability that developed me as a fighter is pretty slim.

Then when I then think I can win a boxing match because I am harry hardass down at the pub and get flogged.

It is more likely that the boxer beat me because he has a fundamentally better tool set.

This is also why we see styles like boxing do OK outside their manufactured environment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> OK. So originally the idea is boxing ,in this case,is a manufactured environment. And so when you throw a system that is not meant to be chained down by rules into an environment that is. They are so hampered by this that they perform badly. This is not because they fundamentally perform badly. But because that is not the environment they are designed to perform in.
> 
> Imagine putting a shark in a running race with a turtle. The shark while being way more awesome. Looses due it being out of water.
> 
> But a street fighting system is also chained by the small amount of exposure that has been used to develop its system. So if I go out to the pub and bash ten guys. The chances of those ten guys being of an ability that developed me as a fighter is pretty slim.
> 
> Then when I then think I can win a boxing match because I am harry hardass down at the pub and get flogged.
> 
> It is more likely that the boxer beat me because he has a fundamentally better tool set.
> 
> This is also why we see styles like boxing do OK outside their manufactured environment.


Ah, gotcha. Yes, a recurring problem.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Ah, gotcha. Yes, a recurring problem.



And look if we put a 10 an 0 street fighter vs a 10 and 0 ring fighter anywhere. Where would the smart money be?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

How does a street fighter develop his skill, ability, and experience?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And look if we put a 10 an 0 street fighter vs a 10 and 0 ring fighter anywhere. Where would the smart money be?


Depends how we define 10 and 0, I suppose. In general, if we're talking about a 10 among all ring fighters, that's an elite athlete, so that's the safe money.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> OK. So originally the idea is boxing ,in this case,is a manufactured environment. And so when you throw a system that is not meant to be chained down by rules into an environment that is. They are so hampered by this that they perform badly. This is not because they fundamentally perform badly. But because that is not the environment they are designed to perform in.
> 
> Imagine putting a shark in a running race with a turtle. The shark while being way more awesome. Looses due it being out of water.
> 
> But a street fighting system is also chained by the small amount of exposure that has been used to develop its system. So if I go out to the pub and bash ten guys. The chances of those ten guys being of an ability that developed me as a fighter is pretty slim.
> 
> Then when I then think I can win a boxing match because I am harry hardass down at the pub and get flogged.
> 
> It is more likely that the boxer beat me because he has a fundamentally better tool set.
> 
> This is also why we see styles like boxing do OK outside their manufactured environment.


Actually that's not really what I was trying to say.

It's not that they perform badly because they are hampered at all.

This comparison came up because Jobo couldnt see the wing chun style in Alan Orr's student when he won his boxing match. 

What i was saying was that the structure of the environment as determined by the rules, makes certain tactics optimal. 

Since any fighter should adapt what he does to his environment (you wouldn't try and high kick if you were waist deep in a river) a boxing match necessitates adaptation towards those optimal tactics ie boxing. 

How much adaptation is dependent on the style and the fighter I suppose.

Does the change in environment hamper the fighter? Probably... hence all the clips I've seen of pro boxers in mma are of them getting beat down and very few people are putting money on Connor McGregor. 

However I would argue that the embarrassment that occurs in most wing chun beat down videos is due to a lack of core skills plus a lack of experience and understanding with fighting outside the class.

I also believe that it's not the toolset in terms of techniques that let boxers do well when fighting at the pub, but rather the development of those core skills like timing, distancing, accuracy, spotting and reacting to attacks, balanced movement etc.
 Not to mention the fast and powerful punches developed in the gym.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Depends how we define 10 and 0, I suppose. In general, if we're talking about a 10 among all ring fighters, that's an elite athlete, so that's the safe money.



Sorry ten fights zero losses. It is in part how a fighters ability is determined.

In ring terms you are getting pretty good by that stage.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Actually that's not really what I was trying to say.
> 
> It's not that they perform badly because they are hampered at all.
> 
> This comparison came up because Jobo couldnt see the wing chun style in Alan Orr's student when he won his boxing match.
> 
> What i was saying was that the structure of the environment as determined by the rules, makes certain tactics optimal.
> 
> Since any fighter should adapt what he does to his environment (you wouldn't try and high kick if you were waist deep in a river) a boxing match necessitates adaptation towards those optimal tactics ie boxing.
> 
> How much adaptation is dependent on the style and the fighter I suppose.
> 
> Does the change in environment hamper the fighter? Probably... hence all the clips I've seen of pro boxers in mma are of them getting beat down and very few people are putting money on Connor McGregor.
> 
> However I would argue that the embarrassment that occurs in most wing chun beat down videos is due to a lack of core skills plus a lack of experience and understanding with fighting outside the class.
> 
> I also believe that it's not the toolset in terms of techniques that let boxers do well when fighting at the pub, but rather the development of those core skills like timing, distancing, accuracy, spotting and reacting to attacks, balanced movement etc.
> Not to mention the fast and powerful punches developed in the gym.



OK. But if I can stop a fast punch. I really should be able to stop a slow punch. Developing a system to handle competent fighters should handle less competent ones by default.

Who were the fighters wing chun was designed to handle? And how does that effect their adaptation?

I put it to you Alan Orr's guys had to become basically better because their level of opponent became better.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> OK. But if I can stop a fast punch. I really should be able to stop a slow punch. Developing a system to handle competent fighters should handle less competent ones by default.
> 
> Who were the fighters wing chun was designed to handle? And how does that effect their adaptation?
> 
> I put it to you Alan Orr's guys had to become basically better because their level of opponent became better.



That first part is absolutely true.
The second part is a valid question and certainly something not often considered. I think the who is less important than the overall culture. If we believe that wing chun was designed to defeat the martial arts prevalent in and around Southern China, then it seems reasonable to need to adapt what your doing for the modern global martial environment. But to do that you'd have to understand both the art you want to change and the environment your in.

That being said, TMA incorporate adaptability by being built on principles rather than concrete and sacrosanct techniques. So long as you are following the principles of the style you are using said style regardless of the outward form. Hence Alan Orr and his students (and his teacher too) are adamant that wing chun simply does not look the same in application.  

I can't dispute your last statement because it's an obvious truth, better opponents necessitate our own improvement, but I think it's a more generic point than you are trying to make it. Just because someone is boxing doesn't mean they are a good fighter.

What makes Alan Orr's students effective is their training that both stresses alive practice, develops core skills and allows adjustment for different environments.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> That first part is absolutely true.
> The second part is a valid question and certainly something not often considered. I think the who is less important than the overall culture. If we believe that wing chun was designed to defeat the martial arts prevalent in and around Southern China, then it seems reasonable to need to adapt what your doing for the modern global martial environment. But to do that you'd have to understand both the art you want to change and the environment your in.
> 
> That being said, TMA incorporate adaptability by being built on principles rather than concrete and sacrosanct techniques. So long as you are following the principles of the style you are using said style regardless of the outward form. Hence Alan Orr and his students (and his teacher too) are adamant that wing chun simply does not look the same in application.
> 
> I can't dispute your last statement because it's an obvious truth, better opponents necessitate our own improvement, but I think it's a more generic point than you are trying to make it. Just because someone is boxing doesn't mean they are a good fighter.
> 
> What makes Alan Orr's students effective is their training that both stresses alive practice, develops core skills and allows adjustment for different environments.


"Does not look the same in application"

This comes up a lot, but seems to be properly understood as 'my stuff doesn't work so it had to be so heavily modified as to be unrecognizable'

Look at styles that are proven to work

Boxing looks like boxing. BJJ looks like BJJ. Mui Thai looks like Mui Thai. 5 seconds of observation tells you what it is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> "Does not look the same in application"
> 
> This comes up a lot, but seems to be properly understood as 'my stuff doesn't work so it had to be so heavily modified as to be unrecognizable'
> 
> Look at styles that are proven to work
> 
> Boxing looks like boxing. BJJ looks like BJJ. Mui Thai looks like Mui Thai. 5 seconds of observation tells you what it is.


I think it depends upon when you look at it. There's some stuff in NGA that, if you look at the light drills, it's unlike what real application will look like. Why? Because there's nothing messing up. Things get messy once people start acting unpredictably. Now, if you look at the heavier, more "live" drills, you'll see something that's more like what you're likely to see from us when we spar, even when we mix with other styles.

If a style doesn't have anything in their training that looks like application, that (IMO) suggests they're leaving out some of the heavier drilling, especially the "live" component.

Here's a very simple example. Think of a standard one-hand knife edge block (shuto block) that exists in many JMA. The least "live" drill for that (without losing a partner) is a simple, predictable pattern of punches from a partner who stands still, squared up. You block each one in turn (knowing what is coming) without needing to step, etc. I teach this to beginners to help them work on things like keeping elbows in and getting some structure into the block so it doesn't collapse. There's a huge range of drills that can progressively approach functional use (I use whichever ones the student needs, and skip those they don't). If you compare that first drill to a live use, you probably won't spot something that looks like it. They shouldn't be standing still. They will probably change their body structure to protect themselves better. Since they'll be moving, they won't be squared up. In some cases, the shuto contact will be almost impossible to see, as they'll transition to a grip or trap if it's available.

None of that will look much like the first, lightest drill. But it will look a lot like even some of the mid-range drills where the blocks are incorporated into grappling techniques and sparring.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> "Does not look the same in application"
> 
> This comes up a lot, but seems to be properly understood as 'my stuff doesn't work so it had to be so heavily modified as to be unrecognizable'
> 
> Look at styles that are proven to work
> 
> Boxing looks like boxing. BJJ looks like BJJ. Mui Thai looks like Mui Thai. 5 seconds of observation tells you what it is.



I can see why you might think that but there are a couple of issues with that statement. 

First and foremost is the culture.
Many Southeast Asian martial arts (and I'm led to believe non martial pursuits too), practice an idealised form for learning. I have books from the turn of the 20th century where notable karate masters  (all of whom were disciples to kungfu sifu) explain that form and application are separate things. It is not some new idea being used to excuse bad performance it is a fact of the culture of these martial arts. Its also a very common point of contention where schools have proliferated quickly there are often misconceptions about what is idealised and what is practical. Karateka have been arguing over kata application for the last 20 years, but the progression from mimicking the form to free fighting with the principles (shu-ha-ri) is well documented. 

Second I thoroughly dispute the idea that boxing in the gym looks like boxing in application. To watch any average Joe boxer shadow box or work a heavy bag you would think the likes of Lomanchenko or Tyson were the norm. Yet put them in the ring and the story is markedly different. Some trainers don't even believe in "fancy stuff" like that, but their fighters can all look the part in front of the floor-ceiling ball or shadow boxing etc. I imagine the same is true for the other arts you mentioned (think Muay Boran forms in Ong Bak vs the ring fight scene).
Idealised form vs reality.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> I can see why you might think that but there are a couple of issues with that statement.
> 
> First and foremost is the culture.
> Many Southeast Asian martial arts (and I'm led to believe non martial pursuits too), practice an idealised form for learning. I have books from the turn of the 20th century where notable karate masters  (all of whom were disciples to kungfu sifu) explain that form and application are separate things. It is not some new idea being used to excuse bad performance it is a fact of the culture of these martial arts. Its also a very common point of contention where schools have proliferated quickly there are often misconceptions about what is idealised and what is practical. Karateka have been arguing over kata application for the last 20 years, but the progression from mimicking the form to free fighting with the principles (shu-ha-ri) is well documented.


Interesting. I wasn't aware of this being culturally driven. It might explain why some of the early training drills in NGA seem so stylized to me. 



> Second I thoroughly dispute the idea that boxing in the gym looks like boxing in application. To watch any average Joe boxer shadow box or work a heavy bag you would think the likes of Lomanchenko or Tyson were the norm. Yet put them in the ring and the story is markedly different. Some trainers don't even believe in "fancy stuff" like that, but their fighters can all look the part in front of the floor-ceiling ball or shadow boxing etc. I imagine the same is true for the other arts you mentioned (think Muay Boran forms in Ong Bak vs the ring fight scene).
> Idealised form vs reality.


So, would you say that (in the boxing example you give) the more skilled the fighter, the more likely they are to execute in sparring/competition closely to their drills? And if that's true, would you expect the same from a high-level karateka (for instance), when you look past the forms (for the reasons you gave)?


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Interesting. I wasn't aware of this being culturally driven. It might explain why some of the early training drills in NGA seem so stylized to me.
> 
> 
> So, would you say that (in the boxing example you give) the more skilled the fighter, the more likely they are to execute in sparring/competition closely to their drills? And if that's true, would you expect the same from a high-level karateka (for instance), when you look past the forms (for the reasons you gave)?


i agree,dave keeps ignoring awkward question, the method to get good is large amounts of practise, the more you practise the more the movement patterns are establish, the harder it is to do something else, when the pressure is on


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I think it depends upon when you look at it. There's some stuff in NGA that, if you look at the light drills, it's unlike what real application will look like. Why? Because there's nothing messing up. Things get messy once people start acting unpredictably. Now, if you look at the heavier, more "live" drills, you'll see something that's more like what you're likely to see from us when we spar, even when we mix with other styles.
> 
> If a style doesn't have anything in their training that looks like application, that (IMO) suggests they're leaving out some of the heavier drilling, especially the "live" component.
> 
> Here's a very simple example. Think of a standard one-hand knife edge block (shuto block) that exists in many JMA. The least "live" drill for that (without losing a partner) is a simple, predictable pattern of punches from a partner who stands still, squared up. You block each one in turn (knowing what is coming) without needing to step, etc. I teach this to beginners to help them work on things like keeping elbows in and getting some structure into the block so it doesn't collapse. There's a huge range of drills that can progressively approach functional use (I use whichever ones the student needs, and skip those they don't). If you compare that first drill to a live use, you probably won't spot something that looks like it. They shouldn't be standing still. They will probably change their body structure to protect themselves better. Since they'll be moving, they won't be squared up. In some cases, the shuto contact will be almost impossible to see, as they'll transition to a grip or trap if it's available.
> 
> None of that will look much like the first, lightest drill. But it will look a lot like even some of the mid-range drills where the blocks are incorporated into grappling techniques and sparring.


If you train your body to move a certain way, to strike a certain way, to stand a certain way, and that all goes out the window when things get real to the point you are no longer moving,striking, or standing that way, you probably want to reevaluate your training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> If you train your body to move a certain way, to strike a certain way, to stand a certain way, and that all goes out the window when things get real to the point you are no longer moving,striking, or standing that way, you probably want to reevaluate your training.


Agreed. That was my point. If you looked at early drills, you'd get that impression about the blocking I teach (only part of the movement is there, so hard to recognize). If you look at the later drills, you'd see the training matches what gets used in live sparring.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. That was my point. If you looked at early drills, you'd get that impression about the blocking I teach (only part of the movement is there, so hard to recognize). If you look at the later drills, you'd see the training matches what gets used in live sparring.


Why would you train something that only needs to be unlearned later? Why not just teach what can be used, right off the bat?

Seems like a way to needlessly(and counter productively) extend learning time. Is it about the $$$?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Why would you train something that only needs to be unlearned later? Why not just teach what can be used, right off the bat?
> 
> Seems like a way to needlessly(and counter productively) extend learning time. Is it about the $$$?


Not something to be unlearned. A part of a total. It's like a boxer practicing with the speed bag. You won't see that set of motions in that appearance during a boxing match. It's a drill that builds toward something else. Or do you argue speed bag work is also useless?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Is it about the $$$?


Oh, and that's a graceless attack. You can do better.


----------



## DaveB

gpseymour said:


> Interesting. I wasn't aware of this being culturally driven. It might explain why some of the early training drills in NGA seem so stylized to me.



I once spoke to a karate historian who linked it to some Buddhist philosophy of something or other.. But either way I've yet to encounter a traditional art that didn't stress application of it's ideas over external form.



> So, would you say that (in the boxing example you give) the more skilled the fighter, the more likely they are to execute in sparring/competition closely to their drills? And if that's true, would you expect the same from a high-level karateka (for instance), when you look past the forms (for the reasons you gave)?



Yes and no. It certainly takes a high level of skill to make the ideal form work, but I'd suggest it was not an objective difference in skill that makes one able to employ such methods as much as specific training regimes.
When Tyson stopped training with Cuss Demato (Sp?) his style changed and his decline began.

As to high level karateka looking like their idealised form, the art just isn't designed that way. The ideal form is taken from the kata and the kata are part symbolic and part exaggerated for exercise. Hence trying to fight with kata is a misinterpretation of the art. As far as I know the same is true for all CMA.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> i agree,dave keeps ignoring awkward question, the method to get good is large amounts of practise, the more you practise the more the movement patterns are establish, the harder it is to do something else, when the pressure is on



Ignoring awkward questions?
 Like when I asked you to give time references for your misrepresentation of the Alan Orr vids? Or like now when I'm goingvto ask you to quote said awkward questions and you won't be able to?

You say (and Martial D agrees) "the method to get good is lots of practice". So how is that different to me saying training is all important not style? 

But by Martial D's argument if you put on boxing gloves and step into a ring but spent everyday eating pizza on a sun lounger you are still better than a dedicated well trained wing chun exponent because boxing rules and styles win fights. You don't question that?

Obviously repetition shapes technique. No one is saying your supposed to go from the commonly seen wing chun drills to looking like a cage fighter.  The point is that there are levels of training between the surface form and the final application. I did mention this (Shu-ha-ri). 

The stuff we commonly associate with wing chun is the shu stage. Surface application of standard movements. 
Ha, is looking deeper into those movements for other uses. From what I can tell this is where a lot if the arguments in wing chun forums happen about the real purpose of movements.  
Ri, is the kind of thing Alan Orr does where he highlights the ideas underpinning his movements but the moves themselves take whatever form is practical for the circumstance. So when he shows tan sau his arm isnt extended but rather in a guard position as he's pressed up close to the opponent, but he's turning into it to spread the opponents guard and control their movement. 

It boggles the mind that a fellow martial artist would think that talk of different levels of application means you expect a student to do one set of training and then fight a different way. To be clear, each level requires it's own training process.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Ignoring awkward questions?
> Like when I asked you to give time references for your misrepresentation of the Alan Orr vids? Or like now when I'm goingvto ask you to quote said awkward questions and you won't be able to?
> 
> You say (and Martial D agrees) "the method to get good is lots of practice". So how is that different to me saying training is all important not style?
> 
> But by Martial D's argument if you put on boxing gloves and step into a ring but spent everyday eating pizza on a sun lounger you are still better than a dedicated well trained wing chun exponent because boxing rules and styles win fights. You don't question that?
> 
> Obviously repetition shapes technique. No one is saying your supposed to go from the commonly seen wing chun drills to looking like a cage fighter.  The point is that there are levels of training between the surface form and the final application. I did mention this (Shu-ha-ri).
> 
> The stuff we commonly associate with wing chun is the shu stage. Surface application of standard movements.
> Ha, is looking deeper into those movements for other uses. From what I can tell this is where a lot if the arguments in wing chun forums happen about the real purpose of movements.
> Ri, is the kind of thing Alan Orr does where he highlights the ideas underpinning his movements but the moves themselves take whatever form is practical for the circumstance. So when he shows tan sau his arm isnt extended but rather in a guard position as he's pressed up close to the opponent, but he's turning into it to spread the opponents guard and control their movement.
> 
> It boggles the mind that a fellow martial artist would think that talk of different levels of application means you expect a student to do one set of training and then fight a different way. To be clear, each level requires it's own training process.


I've asked several times, when you say any art will work, what calibre of fighter will it work against? 

the better you get at say wing chun, the more you are restricted by the movement patterns that form part of wing chun, the more difficult it is to fight in a different and more effective way. 

if you train extensively in that " wing chun" boxing you keep banging on about, then you will be more effective than plain old wing chun. 

but that is so fundamental different from wing chun , that it's a real push to see any wing chun it it at all.

which is the other awkward question, when i asked you to identify any elements of wing chun, in the wing chun boxing you declined to answer


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> the better you get at say wing chun, the more you are restricted by the movement patterns that form part of wing chun, the more difficult it is to fight in a different and more effective way.



I would think that, like other systems, this is only as true as we make it. The movement patterns are the starting point, a way to learn the principles and one possible set of applications. Within the principles are other approaches. I see this a lot in TMA, somewhat less in boxing, and even see it in sports like soccer and basketball. I refer to it as "playing in the grey areas" - the area between the "techniques".


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Not something to be unlearned. A part of a total. It's like a boxer practicing with the speed bag. You won't see that set of motions in that appearance during a boxing match. It's a drill that builds toward something else. Or do you argue speed bag work is also useless?


Apples and oranges it seems. Speed bag work is for developing timing, it's not properly a punching drill. 

I honestly would have to see what you mean to properly argue, but it seems odd you would drill an incomplete defensive movement only to alter it after it's already been committed to muscle memory by the student.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I would think that, like other systems, this is only as true as we make it. The movement patterns are the starting point, a way to learn the principles and one possible set of applications. Within the principles are other approaches. I see this a lot in TMA, somewhat less in boxing, and even see it in sports like soccer and basketball. I refer to it as "playing in the grey areas" - the area between the "techniques".


yes and no, as we touched on in another thread, you become proficient when and only when you have drilled a movement pattern so its an instinctive reaction. Once you have made it an instinctive reaction, it is the devils own job to do something else, even if the something else is better.

as i have been told there are no belts for making up your own Ma that works in the grey area ie my insistence of using boxing footwork and moving instead of blocking whilst doing  karate,


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> I've asked several times, when you say any art will work, what calibre of fighter will it work against?
> 
> the better you get at say wing chun, the more you are restricted by the movement patterns that form part of wing chun, the more difficult it is to fight in a different and more effective way.
> 
> if you train extensively in that " wing chun" boxing you keep banging on about, then you will be more effective than plain old wing chun.
> 
> but that is so fundamental different from wing chun , that it's a real push to see any wing chun it it at all.
> 
> which is the other awkward question, when i asked you to identify any elements of wing chun, in the wing chun boxing you declined to answer



Why would I keep answering questions based on a misrepresentation of my argument. You are the only person who has talked about a wing chun boxing style. You make errors and refuse to be corrected so talking to you becomes a waste of time.

The level of opponent is about the level of training and the skill of the individual. Why should the level of opponent be restricted based on ma style? If you train like a pro you will fight like a pro.

As to the elements of wing chun in the boxing vid, I told you that Alan Orr's videos answer the question better than I could. I've sat through about half an hour worth of vids to learn about his method but because your too lazy to look for yourself I should explain it to you, probably so you can then question me more in the version of the discussion that's in your head.

No thanks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Apples and oranges it seems. Speed bag work is for developing timing, it's not properly a punching drill.
> 
> I honestly would have to see what you mean to properly argue, but it seems odd you would drill an incomplete defensive movement only to alter it after it's already been committed to muscle memory by the student.


You admit to not knowing the drill, then proceed to extol its detriment. Perhaps you see the problem in that approach.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> yes and no, as we touched on in another thread, you become proficient when and only when you have drilled a movement pattern so its an instinctive reaction. Once you have made it an instinctive reaction, it is the devils own job to do something else, even if the something else is better.
> 
> as i have been told there are no belts for making up your own Ma that works in the grey area ie my insistence of using boxing footwork and moving instead of blocking whilst doing  karate,



What kind of karate are you doing where they don't let you use footwork?

1. Not sure I agree with the instinctive reaction part, especially for a progressive model of learning like what is being discussed. The idea tends to go along with the whole "don't think, react" idea of martial arts, which I think is a very basic level of training and certainly not mastery of anything. 

2. If the plan is to progress beyond something two things must obviously be the case. 
First, were not going to drill that thing until you can't do anything else.
Second, the movements we progress onto must bear enough of a relationship to the initial moves that learning them is a development of an idea rather than a rewrite.

Think of it like this.  In primary school you learn that speed = distance over time.

Then you go on to study physics or engineering and find that no one ever uses that simple formula, instead you have 3 more complicated equations of motion that you need to learn to convert between.

Was learning the first equation pointless?
Only if you go on to do drama instead of physics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> yes and no, as we touched on in another thread, you become proficient when and only when you have drilled a movement pattern so its an instinctive reaction. Once you have made it an instinctive reaction, it is the devils own job to do something else, even if the something else is better.
> 
> as i have been told there are no belts for making up your own Ma that works in the grey area ie my insistence of using boxing footwork and moving instead of blocking whilst doing  karate,


That's accurate to a point, but only to that point. Beyond a certain level of expertise, a good deal of generalization occurs. Many sequences I use instinctively are not the sequences I trained. They are variants of them, and follow the principles. I do still often use the exact sequences, but also use the variants. This is part of normal skill development. This is why elite tennis athletes can make odd return shots (behind the back and between the legs, for instance) without thought when they can't reach for a more conventional return.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Why would I keep answering questions based on a misrepresentation of my argument. You are the only person who has talked about a wing chun boxing style. You make errors and refuse to be corrected so talking to you becomes a waste of time.
> 
> The level of opponent is about the level of training and the skill of the individual. Why should the level of opponent be restricted based on ma style? If you train like a pro you will fight like a pro.
> 
> As to the elements of wing chun in the boxing vid, I told you that Alan Orr's videos answer the question better than I could. I've sat through about half an hour worth of vids to learn about his method but because your too lazy to look for yourself I should explain it to you, probably so you can then question me more in the version of the discussion that's in your head.
> 
> No thanks.


because wing chun will work against a great % of the general population and not very well at all against a skilled fighter. To keep insisting that any style will work with out specifying against who, is meaningless

I'm not sitting through half an hour of dribble, your. Making this case, you should be able to support it with out just refering to vids


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> That's accurate to a point, but only to that point. Beyond a certain level of expertise, a good deal of generalization occurs. Many sequences I use instinctively are not the sequences I trained. They are variants of them, and follow the principles. I do still often use the exact sequences, but also use the variants. This is part of normal skill development. This is why elite tennis athletes can make odd return shots (behind the back and between the legs, for instance) without thought when they can't reach for a more conventional return.


yes there are amazingly talent people playing sports that can do original high precisions movement with out having practised them, they earn millions because they are very special.

if you are using sequences that are superior to the ones you trained, then the training was wrong, or you are doing something less good,it has to be one or the other


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> What kind of karate are you doing where they don't let you use footwork?
> 
> 1. Not sure I agree with the instinctive reaction part, especially for a progressive model of learning like what is being discussed. The idea tends to go along with the whole "don't think, react" idea of martial arts, which I think is a very basic level of training and certainly not mastery of anything.
> 
> 2. If the plan is to progress beyond something two things must obviously be the case.
> First, were not going to drill that thing until you can't do anything else.
> Second, the movements we progress onto must bear enough of a relationship to the initial moves that learning them is a development of an idea rather than a rewrite.
> 
> Think of it like this.  In primary school you learn that speed = distance over time.
> 
> Then you go on to study physics or engineering and find that no one ever uses that simple formula, instead you have 3 more complicated equations of motion that you need to learn to convert between.
> 
> Was learning the first equation pointless?
> Only if you go on to do drama instead of physics.


the formula for calculating speed is always distance over time, what other formula and you thinking of that replaces it?


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> What kind of karate are you doing where they don't let you use footwork?
> 
> 1. Not sure I agree with the instinctive reaction part, especially for a progressive model of learning like what is being discussed. The idea tends to go along with the whole "don't think, react" idea of martial arts, which I think is a very basic level of training and certainly not mastery of anything.
> 
> 2. If the plan is to progress beyond something two things must obviously be the case.
> First, were not going to drill that thing until you can't do anything else.
> Second, the movements we progress onto must bear enough of a relationship to the initial moves that learning them is a development of an idea rather than a rewrite.
> 
> Think of it like this.  In primary school you learn that speed = distance over time.
> 
> Then you go on to study physics or engineering and find that no one ever uses that simple formula, instead you have 3 more complicated equations of motion that you need to learn to convert between.
> 
> Was learning the first equation pointless?
> Only if you go on to do drama instead of physics.


you don't have time to think,if someone is throwing a mighty punch at you, you have perhaps a tenth of a,second to do decided to do something, thinking will put your reaction time up towards half a second, which is to late, it doesn't matter if you block or move as long as you do it as a reaction, it doesn't matter if you hit back with a punch an elbow of a knee as long as you do it very quickly.
that why you practise block/ move strike, so you don't need to think , what comes next?


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> because wing chun will work against a great % of the general population and not very well at all against a skilled fighter.



I would love to readvthe study you conducted. Is there a link to it? Or is this another example of you pulling something out of your bottom and treating it as a factual part of the conversation?

We're currently discussing wing chun that is trained in a way that you haven't seen before. How do you come to that conclusion and how do you justify going back on your own comments about the importance of training to now say that style fixes the level at which one can fight?



> To keep insisting that any style will work with out specifying against who, is meaningless



That's because you've ignored about a third of my posts (especially the last one where I answered this) and are defining "works" as "wins", which is just silly (for reasons already discussed).



> I'm not sitting through half an hour of dribble, your. Making this case, you should be able to support it with out just refering to vids



Then I guess you will just have to wonder.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> you don't have time to think,if someone is throwing a mighty punch at you, you have perhaps a tenth of a,second to do decided to do something, thinking will put your reaction time up towards half a second, which is to late, it doesn't matter if you block or move as long as you do it as a reaction, it doesn't matter if you hit back with a punch an elbow of a knee as long as you do it very quickly.
> that why you practise block/ move strike, so you don't need to think , what comes next?



Then why is one of the most common descriptive phrases about fighting in general and boxing in particular, "a chess game"?


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> the formula for calculating speed is always distance over time, what other formula and you thinking of that replaces it?



For future reference, this is the kind of question I ignore from you... trying to argue semantics and missing the point. 

They are called the equations of motion, look it up.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> For future reference, this is the kind of question I ignore from you... trying to argue semantics and missing the point.
> 
> They are called the equations of motion, look it up.


i think they are called the laws of motion ? But non of them replace speed equals time over distance


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Then why is one of the most common descriptive phrases about fighting in general and boxing in particular, "a chess game"?


really, what are commonalities with chess?


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> I would love to readvthe study you conducted. Is there a link to it? Or is this another example of you pulling something out of your bottom and treating it as a factual part of the conversation?
> 
> We're currently discussing wing chun that is trained in a way that you haven't seen before. How do you come to that conclusion and how do you justify going back on your own comments about the importance of training to now say that style fixes the level at which one can fight?
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you've ignored about a third of my posts (especially the last one where I answered this) and are defining "works" as "wins", which is just silly (for reasons already discussed).
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess you will just have to wonder.


no your posting vids of some ma that looks nothing at all like wing chun , whilst claiming it is wing chun, as some bloke on you tube said it was

if a style is incapable of wining a contest , then its pretty clear it doesn't work, to claim that constantly losing equals " works" is nonsense


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> yes there are amazingly talent people playing sports that can do original high precisions movement with out having practised them, they earn millions because they are very special.
> 
> if you are using sequences that are superior to the ones you trained, then the training was wrong, or you are doing something less good,it has to be one or the other


Actually, most athletes can perform movements that are variations of what they were trained. If they can't they generally don't make the cut when they reach a level where players compete for spots on a team. I referred to elite tennis players, because it's fairly easy to spot the movements they almost certainly don't practice and would be silly to contain in their everyday training.

At what point did I say the other sequences were superior to the trained ones? They fit better for the given situation. I still use the trained ones because they fit better in other situations. We literally cannot reasonably train every sequence of movement that is even likely to be useful - others (like that great tennis shot) are natural progressions of skill development.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> you don't have time to think,if someone is throwing a mighty punch at you, you have perhaps a tenth of a,second to do decided to do something, thinking will put your reaction time up towards half a second, which is to late, it doesn't matter if you block or move as long as you do it as a reaction, it doesn't matter if you hit back with a punch an elbow of a knee as long as you do it very quickly.
> that why you practise block/ move strike, so you don't need to think , what comes next?


Which is supposed to refute precisely what in his comment?


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Which is supposed to refute precisely what in his comment?


that don't think, react is very basic ma, when its a requirement of all levels of ma, because otherwise you get punched a lot


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> i think they are called the laws of motion ? But non of them replace speed equals time over distance


I'll save you the effort you won't put forth to learn: I believe he's referring to the Kinematic Equations (also known as the equations of motion). Speed is fairly frequently replaced with velocity equations once you get past the simplest level of physics, except where a rough estimate will serve.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> that don't think, react is very basic ma, when its a requirement of all levels of ma, because otherwise you get punched a lot


Which he actually said. You're arguing against a position he didn't take, so far as I can tell:

"The idea tends to go along with the whole "don't think, react" idea of martial arts, which I think is a very basic level of training and certainly not mastery of anything."


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Actually, most athletes can perform movements that are variations of what they were trained. If they can't they generally don't make the cut when they reach a level where players compete for spots on a team. I referred to elite tennis players, because it's fairly easy to spot the movements they almost certainly don't practice and would be silly to contain in their everyday training.
> 
> At what point did I say the other sequences were superior to the trained ones? They fit better for the given situation. I still use the trained ones because they fit better in other situations. We literally cannot reasonably train every sequence of movement that is even likely to be useful - others (like that great tennis shot) are natural progressions of skill development.


well yes of course they can, but slight  variation of what they were trained is not something completely different, which is what you were suggesting.
ma is a menu of relatively few moves that work and quite a lot that are at best low %. 

if you are punched, you either block or move, there isn't another option, what variation are you suggesting could be used instead?


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I'll save you the effort you won't put forth to learn: I believe he's referring to the Kinematic Equations (also known as the equations of motion). Speed is fairly frequently replaced with velocity equations once you get past the simplest level of physics, except where a rough estimate will serve.



speed and velocity are two completely different concept, speed can never be replaced by velocity , as it not the same thing. If what you want to know is what spped an object is moving then time over distance is what is required


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> well yes of course they can, but slight  variation of what they were trained is not something completely different, which is what you were suggesting.
> ma is a menu of relatively few moves that work and quite a lot that are at best low %.
> 
> if you are punched, you either block or move, there isn't another option, what variation are you suggesting could be used instead?


At no point did I suggest the movements were entirely different. I said they were variations. Most (not all) of the muscular movements that tennis pro uses for that odd shot are in her basics. They're combined in a different way and added to a couple of unusual movements to produce a variation. I do the same with some of our takedowns, and certainly with some of our pins.

See, "block" and "move" are basics (you may recall that blocking was the actual example I used earlier in this, where I discussed a progression). You can train a few variations of those (I think we train 6 blocks, off the top of my head). But variations on those movements are useful, too. They'll train some of those variations in drills (as entry to techniques). And some, they'll just "discover", long before they are trained to them. I "discovered" our cross-arm throw while training as a blue belt, I think. I didn't learn until about 2 years later what that thing was. To me, it was a natural variation of a set of upper-body movements from one technique, with the lower-body movement of another. Neither was quite the same as they'd been trained, but when fitted together in this new combination, they worked. It wasn't a discovery of exploration - it was something I just did. And that's not something unusual about me. I had a training partner make the same discovery, at about the same rank, working with me a year or so later, and I assume there have been others who wandered into "new" territory by following the training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> speed and velocity are two completely different concept, speed can never be replaced by velocity , as it not the same thing. If what you want to know is how fast an object is moving then time over distance is what is required


You're examining it backwards. When students first learn the most basic bits of physics, they learn speed. They later learn where it doesn't apply. Speed doesn't replace velocity. It can, however, be used for rough estimates (where we ignore vector lines, because they lead to an unnecessary level of precision) or where all we need is speed.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Which he actually said. You're arguing against a position he didn't take, so far as I can tell:
> 
> "The idea tends to go along with the whole "don't think, react" idea of martial arts, which I think is a very basic level of training and certainly not mastery of anything."


that pretty clearly say that react don't think is a basic level of ma


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> You're examining it backwards. When students first learn the most basic bits of physics, they learn speed. They later learn where it doesn't apply. Speed doesn't replace velocity. It can, however, be used for rough estimates (where we ignore vector lines, because they lead to an unnecessary level of precision) or where all we need is speed.


no you said velocity is used to replace speed and it clearly isnt


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> At no point did I suggest the movements were entirely different. I said they were variations. Most (not all) of the muscular movements that tennis pro uses for that odd shot are in her basics. They're combined in a different way and added to a couple of unusual movements to produce a variation. I do the same with some of our takedowns, and certainly with some of our pins.
> 
> See, "block" and "move" are basics (you may recall that blocking was the actual example I used earlier in this, where I discussed a progression). You can train a few variations of those (I think we train 6 blocks, off the top of my head). But variations on those movements are useful, too. They'll train some of those variations in drills (as entry to techniques). And some, they'll just "discover", long before they are trained to them. I "discovered" our cross-arm throw while training as a blue belt, I think. I didn't learn until about 2 years later what that thing was. To me, it was a natural variation of a set of upper-body movements from one technique, with the lower-body movement of another. Neither was quite the same as they'd been trained, but when fitted together in this new combination, they worked. It wasn't a discovery of exploration - it was something I just did. And that's not something unusual about me. I had a training partner make the same discovery, at about the same rank, working with me a year or so later, and I assume there have been others who wandered into "new" territory by following the training.


you are going to have to be clear, your jumping about all over the place

a  variation on a move is still using the pattern of movement established through practise, so its ether that OR its something completely different, which ?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> that pretty clearly say that react don't think is a basic level of ma


Yes, it does. Which is also what you said in your post. How is one a refutation of the other?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> no you said velocity is used to replace speed and it clearly isnt


Not what I said. If it read that way, I communicated poorly.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Yes, it does. Which is also what you said in your post. How is one a refutation of the other?


i said react don't think is a key requirement at all levels of ma, that different!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> you are going to have to be clear, your jumping about all over the place
> 
> a  variation on a move is still using the pattern of movement established through practise, so its ether that OR its something completely different, which ?


It is both. It uses some established patterns (that's what it's a variation of) and generates some new ones (which is why it's a variation, rather than the original pattern).

This is exactly the same thing I said in my original comment on that: "Many sequences I use instinctively are not the sequences I trained. They are variants of them, and follow the principles."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> i said react don't think is a key requirement at all levels of ma, that different!


Only if you think basic MA are not a requirement for more advanced MA.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Not what I said. If it read that way, I communicated poorly.


it is was you said, nor is speed used as a rough estimate of velocity, as its NOT the same thing, its not rough its just wrong.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> It is both. It uses some established patterns (that's what it's a variation of) and generates some new ones (which is why it's a variation, rather than the original pattern).
> 
> This is exactly the same thing I said in my original comment on that: "Many sequences I use instinctively are not the sequences I trained. They are variants of them, and follow the principles."


?? Something can't be both NEW and a variation of an existing thing. That's an impossibility, it has to be one or the other, it could be a new variation of the old thing,


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Only if you think basic MA are not a requirement for more advanced MA.


the clear suggestion was that react don't think wasn't done at higher levels, you seem to think it us, so really you should be arguing with Dave b rather than me


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> it is was you said, nor is speed used as a rough estimate of velocity, as its NOT the same thing, its not rough its just wrong.


Actually it is a rough analog. Velocity includes direction, speed does not - the principle difference. If I talk about the speed of a ball traveling from a launcher to its landing point (vacuum, no resistance, gravity present - typical physics assumptions for simplicity), I have a single number. Since its fall (result of gravity) is not linear, the ball actually follows a curve between the two points, so it's velocity isn't constant (changing vectors). The speed - as measured between the two points - is a single number, and a rough approximation of the velocity (assumes a single direction, as an approximation of the ever-changing vectors involved).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> the clear suggestion was that react don't think wasn't done at higher levels, you seem to think it us, so really you should be arguing with Dave b rather than me


I read it as a statement that development of this would begin early, so would be present later. Looking at it, I suppose both readings fit the actual statement, as written.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> ?? Something can't be both NEW and a variation of an existing thing. That's an impossibility, it has to be one or the other, it could be a new variation of the old thing,


So, you're saying a variation is the same as the thing? So, that tennis player hitting the shot between his legs is really just hitting a forehand shot?


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> So, you're saying a variation is the same as the thing? So, that tennis player hitting the shot between his legs is really just hitting a forehand shot?


no,


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Actually it is a rough analog. Velocity includes direction, speed does not - the principle difference. If I talk about the speed of a ball traveling from a launcher to its landing point (vacuum, no resistance, gravity present - typical physics assumptions for simplicity), I have a single number. Since its fall (result of gravity) is not linear, the ball actually follows a curve between the two points, so it's velocity isn't constant (changing vectors). The speed - as measured between the two points - is a single number, and a rough approximation of the velocity (assumes a single direction, as an approximation of the ever-changing vectors involved).


no velocity requires a change of position, angular velocity includes vectors, there is different formula for each.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> no,


But you just asserted that something is either the thing or something new - it cannot be a bit of both. So is that shot entirely new (nothing in it derived from his forehand)?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> no velocity requires a change of position, angular velocity includes vectors, there is different formula for each.


Speed cannot occur if there is no change in position, either, since distance is part of the calculation.


----------



## DaveB

Gpseymore, my hat is off to you. You are a more patient man than I.

I honestly think Jobo is just trolling now. 
A thread about martial arts training has become about Tennis and Newtonian physics all to avoid him saying "I see what you mean."

I wish you and your sanity luck. I'm out until someone has something relevant to add.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Speed cannot occur if there is no change in position, either, since distance is part of the calculation.


of course it can, if i throw a punch and pull my hand back to the same position, there has been distance covered but no,change of position, a better explanation is a spining wheel, it covers distance but never changes position as it always returns to the same spot


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> But you just asserted that something is either the thing or something new - it cannot be a bit of both. So is that shot entirely new (nothing in it derived from his forehand)?


no its not new, they have been doing the through the legs shot since at least the 1960s to my knowledge


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> of course it can, if i throw a punch and pull my hand back to the same position, there has been distance covered but no,change of position, a better explanation is a spining wheel, it covers distance but never changes position as it always returns to the same spot


Um, no. There were two changes of position in that. Ignoring the movement of the hand doesn't change physics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> no its not new, they have been doing the through the legs shot since at least the 1960s to my knowledge


LOL you just can't stand it, can you? I never said it had never happened before. I said it's new when they do it - it's not a practiced motion. They synthesize it as a variation of motions they've practiced.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Gpseymore, my hat is off to you. You are a more patient man than I.
> 
> I honestly think Jobo is just trolling now.
> A thread about martial arts training has become about Tennis and Newtonian physics all to avoid him saying "I see what you mean."
> 
> I wish you and your sanity luck. I'm out until someone has something relevant to add.


you brought up physics with your speed formula and he started on about tennis,


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Um, no. There were two changes of position in that. Ignoring the movement of the hand doesn't change physics.


my hand hast return to where it started, where is the,change of position?


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> i said react don't think is a key requirement at all levels of ma, that different!



You do think when you fight though. Some of it is automated some of it is conscious. Being unpredictable or setting traps requires thinking.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Why would I keep answering questions based on a misrepresentation of my argument. You are the only person who has talked about a wing chun boxing style. You make errors and refuse to be corrected so talking to you becomes a waste of time.
> 
> The level of opponent is about the level of training and the skill of the individual. Why should the level of opponent be restricted based on ma style? If you train like a pro you will fight like a pro.
> 
> As to the elements of wing chun in the boxing vid, I told you that Alan Orr's videos answer the question better than I could. I've sat through about half an hour worth of vids to learn about his method but because your too lazy to look for yourself I should explain it to you, probably so you can then question me more in the version of the discussion that's in your head.
> 
> No thanks.



OK so if I have all the elements that are required to fight well. Like I am athletic and am training hard and consistently. I then shouldn't need a style. Because it will basically work itself out.

I could just train myself right?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> my hand hast return to where it started, where is the,change of position?


From where it started, to the point of impact. Then from the point of impact to the finishing position (ostensibly the same as the starting point). If you ignore those changes, there is no distance to calculate with.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You do think when you fight though. Some of it is automated some of it is conscious. Being unpredictable or setting traps requires thinking.


True on fights that last more than a few seconds, at least. In a planned fight (and some unplanned ones), it would be true even in the first few seconds, when you're testing the other person.


----------



## Steve

How might one train this so that it is an effective fighting style?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> How might one train this so that it is an effective fighting style?


I'm not sure, but I think it has to include Stan Lee.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure, but I think it has to include Stan Lee.




So then, where does that leave us in regards to the assertion that any style can work if trained correctly?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> So then, where does that leave us in regards to the assertion that any style can work if trained correctly?


Where we started, IMO. If by "system", we mean a set of reasonably useful techniques, then the assertion is reasonable. If by "system", we mean any set of techniques, I can put together a set of actual techniques I've collected that I'm pretty sure, even as an entire system, could not be trained into much usefulness.

Decent tools (techniques) and great training probably beat great tools and decent training. Bad tools and great training gives us people who are great at doing something that won't work well. Great tools and bad training might end up with some useful skills anyway, but not commensurate with the effort involved.

This is very much like the other bit that gets bandied about (the individual or the style). The reality is that the individual matters (genetics, personal disposition, commitment, etc.), and so does the style, and so does the training approach.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> How might one train this so that it is an effective fighting style?



Yeah. I did that post two. The counter argument is I am being mean.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Yeah. I did that post two. The counter argument is I am being mean.


No the counter was I laid out specific details as to what my assertion applied to and you had ignored that so you could post your yellow bamboo video.

As to frog kungfu, I simply don't know enough about it.
However if your following the thread you should know that the outward appearance of forms isn't necessarily linked to application. So yes we can all laugh at the crazy kungfu antics, but until we know what the application principles of the style are, which form elements are literal, which are symbolic and which are exercise we have no base with which to discuss the style.

An example might be that the height changes where he ends up on all 4s are symbolic of double leg takedowns; the jumping from couched symbolic of/training the legs for dumping throws where you pick up the opponent from beneathe their centre of gravity; the kicking from the the floor just exercise for throwing the whole body into short sharp kicks and the running punch bit a literal technique.

In application that might then look like a style that used a lot of height change, including jumping kicks and superman punches and flying knees, to hide tackles and takedowns and dumping throws, followed up with stamps. That defends primarily by just getting out of the way and uses a lot of shirt jumps to regain balance or to land strikes while dodging.

The success of such a style will be in the core skills, just like any other style. Can you move well and avoid being cut off. Can you entice the opponent to chase and judge distance to counter hit. Can you sell your high faints and get down fast enough for a takedown... etc.

The now I could be entirely wring about this style and it is just showy nonsense without guiding principles. It could he that there is a genuine less showy frog style that this is related to and study of that reveals pretty effective fighting methods and what we see here is the Chinese gov approved non martial wushu demo form (which would preclude it from this discussion). But without further information the fact that you can look at a video out of context and scoff at it doesn't do anything to the proposition at hand.

And frankly I'm disappointed. It's no wonder Britain keeps voting Tory and America voted trump if we think laughing at out of context footage somehow constitutes an argument. Do better.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> LOL you just can't stand it, can you? I never said it had never happened before. I said it's new when they do it - it's not a practiced motion. They synthesize it as a variation of motions they've practiced.



if they do the through the leg shot whilst practising, they are practising the through the leg shot, are you claiming that it never happen during a practise match?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> if they do the through the leg shot whilst practising, they are practising the through the leg shot, are you claiming that it never happen during a practise match?


No, it happening during practice is not the same thing as practicing it. You are attempting to change definitions to fit your argument, after attempting to ignore parts of a physics equation for the same purpose. 

I believe we are done here.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Where we started, IMO. If by "system", we mean a set of reasonably useful techniques, then the assertion is reasonable. If by "system", we mean any set of techniques, I can put together a set of actual techniques I've collected that I'm pretty sure, even as an entire system, could not be trained into much usefulness.
> 
> Decent tools (techniques) and great training probably beat great tools and decent training. Bad tools and great training gives us people who are great at doing something that won't work well. Great tools and bad training might end up with some useful skills anyway, but not commensurate with the effort involved.
> 
> This is very much like the other bit that gets bandied about (the individual or the style). The reality is that the individual matters (genetics, personal disposition, commitment, etc.), and so does the style, and so does the training approach.


And isn't that really the problem?  You're post above is bashing this style.   You're dismissing the techniques as unreasonable.  You suggest that these would be bad tooLs to use in a fight, and therefore no amount of training will help.

How is that different than someone else dismissing aikido or some other style?  According to the prevailing wisdom around here, you are not aloud to be critical of this style unless you've trained in it.  It's kung fu.  

I should say, it depends on who you are.   Some folks are called out for this behavior.   Some are not. ,Depends on how well liked you are, I think.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> No, it happening during practice is not the same thing as practicing it. You are attempting to change definitions to fit your argument, after attempting to ignore parts of a physics equation for the same purpose.
> 
> I believe we are done here.


of Couse it is , every thing you do in a practise match is by defintion practise.
nb I'm coming back to the physics after ive. Done my work


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> And isn't that really the problem?  You're post above is bashing this style.   You're dismissing the techniques as unreasonable.  You suggest that these would be bad tooLs to use in a fight, and therefore no amount of training will help.
> 
> How is that different than someone else dismissing aikido or some other style?  According to the prevailing wisdom around here, you are not aloud to be critical of this style unless you've trained in it.  It's kung fu.
> 
> I should say, it depends on who you are.   Some folks are called out for this behavior.   Some are not. ,Depends on how well liked you are, I think.


Actually, I'm reacting to the form, which doesn't appear to even be fighting technique. What is in that form (not what's under it - it would have to be deep under) is not going to become highly useful in a fight by being trained better. It may be (as someone suggested) a training tool, but is not fighting technique. The same could be said of knitting technique. Also of shrimping, if viewed as a form. Put that shrimping in context, and it becomes something useful, but isn't without the other techniques. 

I don't bash the form in the video. I assume it is either something entirely esoteric, or a training tool I don't like. If someone wants to assert that's effective in direct application, I'd need to see something to demonstrate it. 

The difference with Aikido is we can see some of the techniques happen in fight videos (includig an MMA video posted recently in MT) and some which appear in other arts (Judo, BJJ, etc.), where we can see them used. There are training methods some (sometimes including myself) don't like. But those training techniques are not universal, nor is their dismissal as ineffective.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Actually, I'm reacting to the form, which doesn't appear to even be fighting technique. What is in that form (not what's under it - it would have to be deep under) is not going to become highly useful in a fight by being trained better. It may be (as someone suggested) a training tool, but is not fighting technique. The same could be said of knitting technique. Also of shrimping, if viewed as a form. Put that shrimping in context, and it becomes something useful, but isn't without the other techniques.
> 
> I don't bash the form in the video. I assume it is either something entirely esoteric, or a training tool I don't like. If someone wants to assert that's effective in direct application, I'd need to see something to demonstrate it.
> 
> The difference with Aikido is we can see some of the techniques happen in fight videos (includig an MMA video posted recently in MT) and some which appear in other arts (Judo, BJJ, etc.), where we can see them used. There are training methods some (sometimes including myself) don't like. But those training techniques are not universal, nor is their dismissal as ineffective.


Surely, you aren't reacting to that kata.  That's sacrosanct.   You just don't understand it and as a result are discounting the fighting style of frog kung fu.  How much experience do you have training in kung fu?

And I am sure I can find some videos where people approximate some of the movements we can see in that video, which can be used to validate the form. 

We all look at things based on our experience and come to some conclusions.   We all do it.  The only question is where on the spectrum do we stop presuming efficacy and start presuming inefficacy.  Everyone's tolerance is different based on several things.  But everyone is on the spectrum somewhere.  The problem I see is that folks don't view themselves as being on that spectrum and so use absolute language (all style bashing is wrong... except when I do it).

It's like the gun control debate.  Folks view themselves as being either for it or against it.  But everyone reasonable person agrees that there are some people who should not be allowed to legally own a firearm.  Whether that's a convicted felon, a person who is mentally ill, a child or whatever, the idea of completely unfettered access to any firearm for anyone is not a commonly held view.  And most people, including people who are "pro" gun, agree that background checks and some form of control is a good idea.  In other words, the discussion is often co-opted by entrenched, absolute positions, when it really should be about where on the spectrum people are, based on their experiences, backgrounds and opinions.

Point is, if we could shift the narrative just a little and stop pigeon holing people into "their team" or "my team" we could maybe start having discussions again.  The jersey wearing around here is very destructive.


----------



## jobo

jobo said:


> of Couse it is , every thing you do in a practise match is by defintion practise.
> nb I'm coming back to the physics after ive. Done my work


here is a vid of badminton players practising the through the leg and other such shots
Badminton World Championships: Marcus Ellis and Chris Langridge show off their trick shots


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Surely, you aren't reacting to that kata.  That's sacrosanct.   You just don't understand it and as a result are discounting the fighting style of frog kung fu.  How much experience do you have training in kung fu?
> 
> And I am sure I can find some videos where people approximate some of the movements we can see in that video, which can be used to validate the form.
> 
> We all look at things based on our experience and come to some conclusions.   We all do it.  The only question is where on the spectrum do we stop presuming efficacy and start presuming inefficacy.  Everyone's tolerance is different based on several things.  But everyone is on the spectrum somewhere.  The problem I see is that folks don't view themselves as being on that spectrum and so use absolute language (all style bashing is wrong... except when I do it).
> 
> It's like the gun control debate.  Folks view themselves as being either for it or against it.  But everyone reasonable person agrees that there are some people who should not be allowed to legally own a firearm.  Whether that's a convicted felon, a person who is mentally ill, a child or whatever, the idea of completely unfettered access to any firearm for anyone is not a commonly held view.  And most people, including people who are "pro" gun, agree that background checks and some form of control is a good idea.  In other words, the discussion is often co-opted by entrenched, absolute positions, when it really should be about where on the spectrum people are, based on their experiences, backgrounds and opinions.
> 
> Point is, if we could shift the narrative just a little and stop pigeon holing people into "their team" or "my team" we could maybe start having discussions again.  The jersey wearing around here is very destructive.


Firstly, my point was the difference between a set of movements that seem ridiculous out of context (and, perhaps, in context, but I don't know that context so I can't know) and the system. That's why I used the shrimping example. If I knew nothing of that movement, it would look ridiculous. Okay, it does, even when you know the purpose. But the ridiculousness goes away when you see it in context of a hip escape.

The same can be easily done with some of the training I do. I think walking stances across the dojo looks stupid, no matter how well it's done. It's really not one of my favorite training tools, and I've heard good arguments that it's too much of an isolation from usage. But I use it when it's appropriate (a current student has neurological issues, and that kind of repetition seems to work for their learning). Out of context, there's nothing inherently useful in someone walking across the floor in a hanmi, but if we look at how the stance and movement can be used for a single-leg takedown, shifting to a leg sweep from the clinch, etc., then it becomes a reasonable training tool.

I think you make an excellent point in this, though. Do we start from a position of assuming efficacy or inefficacy? I tend to enter with what I call trusting skepticism. I accept that there's a lot I don't understand, so I don't quickly assume things are ineffective. I'll take someone's word for it if my experience and logic make it a reasonable claim (like with walking stances), but I'll want more proof before I'd fall on the affirmative side - I'd consider myself too uninformed to contradict. I'll question, and see if they can provide reasonable support for their claims of efficacy, and I'll ask myself if there's inherent bias in their response, etc. But in the end, there's only so much validation I can do without experiencing it, unless something in my past experience gives me special knowledge.

Here's what colors this stance for me: I've experienced things I though were crap, but turned out not to be. I had someone demonstrate a literal no-touch takedown on me, with an explanation that wasn't at all odd. He used a flinch reflex against me, at a moment when I was transitioning and easily set off-balance, and the flinch left me without a base so I fell down. If you'd showed me a video of that, I'd have said it was bunk. But he didn't tell me what he was going to do before doing it. I actually thought I had screwed up, because he never got to throw me. The same kind of experience has happened for me with some of the highly-aiki techniques I've trained in. They seem like crap, and really are until they work (the person learns to let the aiki happen, rather than force it). They sometimes feel like crap when I do them - it feels like the person I'm throwing has cooperated to make it happen. But that happens even when they don't know what's next, so they don't have a chance to cooperate that way.

And to your last point, yes. Unfortunately, we are all human, and tend to respond to people based upon our past experience with them. If they've seemed irrational in a past argument, we are more likely to dismiss their points. And confirmation bias makes us more likely to see agreement as rational.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> And isn't that really the problem?  You're post above is bashing this style.   You're dismissing the techniques as unreasonable.  You suggest that these would be bad tooLs to use in a fight, and therefore no amount of training will help.
> 
> How is that different than someone else dismissing aikido or some other style?  According to the prevailing wisdom around here, you are not aloud to be critical of this style unless you've trained in it.  It's kung fu.
> 
> I should say, it depends on who you are.   Some folks are called out for this behavior.   Some are not. ,Depends on how well liked you are, I think.



There is a convention to style bashing. So linage is OK. Self professed expertise is acceptable. Following accepted dogma is OK.

Evidence isn't.

So when I say for example. A street system is more applicable to self defence than sport.

That is OK.

When I say this is so because I know a cop trained a cop was a bouncer got in a fight once. This is OK.

When I say this is because my system is battlefield or born on the streets or I know the full super secret system. That is OK.

When I say there are a lot more YouTube videos of BJJ winning street fights than krav Maga.

Or pensioners who win street fights are most commonly boxers. That is not OK.

That is not OK.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Firstly, my point was the difference between a set of movements that seem ridiculous out of context (and, perhaps, in context, but I don't know that context so I can't know) and the system. That's why I used the shrimping example. If I knew nothing of that movement, it would look ridiculous. Okay, it does, even when you know the purpose. But the ridiculousness goes away when you see it in context of a hip escape.
> 
> The same can be easily done with some of the training I do. I think walking stances across the dojo looks stupid, no matter how well it's done. It's really not one of my favorite training tools, and I've heard good arguments that it's too much of an isolation from usage. But I use it when it's appropriate (a current student has neurological issues, and that kind of repetition seems to work for their learning). Out of context, there's nothing inherently useful in someone walking across the floor in a hanmi, but if we look at how the stance and movement can be used for a single-leg takedown, shifting to a leg sweep from the clinch, etc., then it becomes a reasonable training tool.
> 
> I think you make an excellent point in this, though. Do we start from a position of assuming efficacy or inefficacy? I tend to enter with what I call trusting skepticism. I accept that there's a lot I don't understand, so I don't quickly assume things are ineffective. I'll take someone's word for it if my experience and logic make it a reasonable claim (like with walking stances), but I'll want more proof before I'd fall on the affirmative side - I'd consider myself too uninformed to contradict. I'll question, and see if they can provide reasonable support for their claims of efficacy, and I'll ask myself if there's inherent bias in their response, etc. But in the end, there's only so much validation I can do without experiencing it, unless something in my past experience gives me special knowledge.
> 
> Here's what colors this stance for me: I've experienced things I though were crap, but turned out not to be. I had someone demonstrate a literal no-touch takedown on me, with an explanation that wasn't at all odd. He used a flinch reflex against me, at a moment when I was transitioning and easily set off-balance, and the flinch left me without a base so I fell down. If you'd showed me a video of that, I'd have said it was bunk. But he didn't tell me what he was going to do before doing it. I actually thought I had screwed up, because he never got to throw me. The same kind of experience has happened for me with some of the highly-aiki techniques I've trained in. They seem like crap, and really are until they work (the person learns to let the aiki happen, rather than force it). They sometimes feel like crap when I do them - it feels like the person I'm throwing has cooperated to make it happen. But that happens even when they don't know what's next, so they don't have a chance to cooperate that way.
> 
> And to your last point, yes. Unfortunately, we are all human, and tend to respond to people based upon our past experience with them. If they've seemed irrational in a past argument, we are more likely to dismiss their points. And confirmation bias makes us more likely to see agreement as rational.



Yes but do you know how much of your training is conformation bias. If you are trained to fall over you will. 

You see this with step out escapes from turtle. If the guy is a noob they will generally collapse. The technique is only a throw by the most ambitious of concepts though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yes but do you know how much of your training is conformation bias. If you are trained to fall over you will.


Only if you know where the fall is "supposed" to occur. We do occasionally fall when we don't need to (some falls are for the purpose of avoiding injury in a lock). We tell each other when that happened - I'll hop up and say, "I didn't really need to fall that time." Part of the problem folks run into is not knowing when to be cooperative and when to stop that. When a new guy is doing a single-leg, you don't resist. You stand until he makes you fall, but you make it fairly easy to do. But you gotta stop making it so easy after a while, and some folks seem to never take that step. They just keep making it easy, and fall even when they shouldn't. And some, early on, fall because they think they should. I've actually had new-ish students who fell before a throw. I'd ask why they fell, and they'd say, "I thought I was supposed to." I just respond, "You're only supposed to fall when I make you fall, or to avoid injury from a lock." Eventually, they get it.



> You see this with step out escapes from turtle. If the guy is a noob they will generally collapse. The technique is only a throw by the most ambitious of concepts though.


I'm not familiar with "step out escapes from turtle" - can you point me to a video so I can see what you're talking about?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Only if you know where the fall is "supposed" to occur. We do occasionally fall when we don't need to (some falls are for the purpose of avoiding injury in a lock). We tell each other when that happened - I'll hop up and say, "I didn't really need to fall that time." Part of the problem folks run into is not knowing when to be cooperative and when to stop that. When a new guy is doing a single-leg, you don't resist. You stand until he makes you fall, but you make it fairly easy to do. But you gotta stop making it so easy after a while, and some folks seem to never take that step. They just keep making it easy, and fall even when they shouldn't. And some, early on, fall because they think they should. I've actually had new-ish students who fell before a throw. I'd ask why they fell, and they'd say, "I thought I was supposed to." I just respond, "You're only supposed to fall when I make you fall, or to avoid injury from a lock." Eventually, they get it.
> 
> 
> I'm not familiar with "step out escapes from turtle" - can you point me to a video so I can see what you're talking about?




Sorry sit out.

This one. And he collapsed. Muppet.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Sorry sit out.
> 
> This one. And he collapsed. Muppet.


I see what you mean. I see that happen with early students. If it's not nipped in the bud, it becomes what you talked about in your earlier post - people fall because they are "supposed to". I've run into it with training partners, and it can become pernicious in an aiki art - it builds a false sense of competence. That's fine for some demonstrations to speed up the display, and sometimes for teaching (when the instructor/coach is running his mouth and half-doing the technique), but should always be done consciously, and with good reason. Frankly, I get suspicious if I'm successful too often.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> There is a convention to style bashing. So linage is OK. Self professed expertise is acceptable. Following accepted dogma is OK.
> 
> Evidence isn't.
> 
> So when I say for example. A street system is more applicable to self defence than sport.
> 
> That is OK.
> 
> When I say this is so because I know a cop trained a cop was a bouncer got in a fight once. This is OK.
> 
> When I say this is because my system is battlefield or born on the streets or I know the full super secret system. That is OK.
> 
> When I say there are a lot more YouTube videos of BJJ winning street fights than krav Maga.
> 
> Or pensioners who win street fights are most commonly boxers. That is not OK.
> 
> That is not OK.



*Plays the violin for you*


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> There is a convention to style bashing. So linage is OK. Self professed expertise is acceptable. Following accepted dogma is OK.
> 
> Evidence isn't.
> 
> So when I say for example. A street system is more applicable to self defence than sport.
> 
> That is OK.
> 
> When I say this is so because I know a cop trained a cop was a bouncer got in a fight once. This is OK.
> 
> When I say this is because my system is battlefield or born on the streets or I know the full super secret system. That is OK.
> 
> When I say there are a lot more YouTube videos of BJJ winning street fights than krav Maga.
> 
> Or pensioners who win street fights are most commonly boxers. That is not OK.
> 
> That is not OK.


People here aren't interested in scientific, or data, or fact, or even true martial arts. They just want status quo, smiles and pat's on the back. I've given up on trying serious discussion with the fantasy fighting club. It's a waste of time.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> *Plays the violin for you*


That's a bit weird


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> That's a bit weird


For some reason, I was picturing Gene Wilder playing for The Monster.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> That's a bit weird


I was comiserating with him over the deep unfairness of it all. The poor little lamb just can't get us to listen to his actual factual evidence about why every non combat sports practitioner is useless.

The poor persecuted darling. It's all so unfair, how can he live with all these charlatans and fantasists. 

My heart is literally bleeding all over the floor...



Martial D said:


> People here aren't interested in scientific, or data, or fact, or even true martial arts. They just want status quo, smiles and pat's on the back. I've given up on trying serious discussion with the fantasy fighting club. It's a waste of time.



That's hilarious (all my sympathy went on poor little dropbear). The invocation of science in relation to your random YouTube assessments, tickles me. 

When someone tries to explain what a scientific approach would look like you call them politically correct. What you do on these forums has nothing to do with science or evidence or data. It is purely your perception with all its biases and cognitive dissonance, exactly the same as those who oppose you. And there's nothing wrong with that. Facts preclude discussion.

The problem you and dropbear (and now it seems Steve) have is nothing to do with whether or not criticism of style is allowed. That's just that old persecution narrative b.s. that gets rolled out by those who feel unheard.

The trouble you have is that all you want to hear is that you are right and all those styles you say are useless, are indeed useless. The thing you actually don't want is discussion, because that is what you get here. Some agreement, some disagreement and some points you just haven't considered (whether rightly or wrongly).

The reason you don't want discussion is that like all personal narratives, you know in your bones it's correct... It's just that everyone else comes up with these excuses (valid arguments) not to listen to you (why you might be wrong in at least part of your view). And you just can't be bothered to keep patiently explaining why they are wrong (snarkily dismissing any arguments you can't answer).

You see, you're not unheard. Your just not always right.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> I was comiserating with him over the deep unfairness of it all. The poor little lamb just can't get us to listen to his actual factual evidence about why every non combat sports practitioner is useless.
> 
> The poor persecuted darling. It's all so unfair, how can he live with all these charlatans and fantasists.
> 
> My heart is literally bleeding all over the floor...
> 
> 
> 
> That's hilarious (all my sympathy went on poor little dropbear). The invocation of science in relation to your random YouTube assessments, tickles me.
> 
> When someone tries to explain what a scientific approach would look like you call them politically correct. What you do on these forums has nothing to do with science or evidence or data. It is purely your perception with all its biases and cognitive dissonance, exactly the same as those who oppose you. And there's nothing wrong with that. Facts preclude discussion.
> 
> The problem you and dropbear (and now it seems Steve) have is nothing to do with whether or not criticism of style is allowed. That's just that old persecution narrative b.s. that gets rolled out by those who feel unheard.
> 
> The trouble you have is that all you want to hear is that you are right and all those styles you say are useless, are indeed useless. The thing you actually don't want is discussion, because that is what you get here. Some agreement, some disagreement and some points you just haven't considered (whether rightly or wrongly).
> 
> The reason you don't want discussion is that like all personal narratives, you know in your bones it's correct... It's just that everyone else comes up with these excuses (valid arguments) not to listen to you (why you might be wrong in at least part of your view). And you just can't be bothered to keep patiently explaining why they are wrong (snarkily dismissing any arguments you can't answer).
> 
> You see, you're not unheard. Your just not always right.


I can't really agree with the tone of your post here, Dave. I don't really know Martial D well enough yet, but Steve and DB are not so entirely irrational as you suggest. I've had productive discussions with both. They have strong biases - as you well point out, we all do - but there's some solid thought behind those biases. I actually appreciate them challenging my thoughts, though I wish some folks could let go of an idea when it becomes clear there's evidence on both sides of it. In the end, I think they contribute a lot here. I disagree with DB pretty frequently, and sometimes to the point I don't care to continue the frustration, but he brings an informed viewpoint. And Steve is pretty rational in his arguments - though entirely wrong, whenever he disagrees with me.


----------



## DaveB

gpseymour said:


> I can't really agree with the tone of your post here, Dave. I don't really know Martial D well enough yet, but Steve and DB are not so entirely irrational as you suggest. I've had productive discussions with both. They have strong biases - as you well point out, we all do - but there's some solid thought behind those biases. I actually appreciate them challenging my thoughts, though I wish some folks could let go of an idea when it becomes clear there's evidence on both sides of it. In the end, I think they contribute a lot here. I disagree with DB pretty frequently, and sometimes to the point I don't care to continue the frustration, but he brings an informed viewpoint. And Steve is pretty rational in his arguments - though entirely wrong, whenever he disagrees with me.



I completely agree with you. Their opinions I mostly find interesting and worth discussing even if I disagree.

What led me to this comment wasn't that they advocate for blaming styles for multiple competetive losses, it's the persecuted whining about the fact everyone doesn't agree or that their chosen line of reasoning is considered taboo...

They are offended by poor fighting mechanics and the defence of it (in their eyes) I'm offended by poor discussion and falsely clothing one's self in the blanket of the persecuted (in my eyes).

C'est la vie.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> I was comiserating with him over the deep unfairness of it all. The poor little lamb just can't get us to listen to his actual factual evidence about why every non combat sports practitioner is useless.
> 
> The poor persecuted darling. It's all so unfair, how can he live with all these charlatans and fantasists.
> 
> My heart is literally bleeding all over the floor...
> 
> 
> 
> That's hilarious (all my sympathy went on poor little dropbear). The invocation of science in relation to your random YouTube assessments, tickles me.
> 
> When someone tries to explain what a scientific approach would look like you call them politically correct. What you do on these forums has nothing to do with science or evidence or data. It is purely your perception with all its biases and cognitive dissonance, exactly the same as those who oppose you. And there's nothing wrong with that. Facts preclude discussion.
> 
> The problem you and dropbear (and now it seems Steve) have is nothing to do with whether or not criticism of style is allowed. That's just that old persecution narrative b.s. that gets rolled out by those who feel unheard.
> 
> The trouble you have is that all you want to hear is that you are right and all those styles you say are useless, are indeed useless. The thing you actually don't want is discussion, because that is what you get here. Some agreement, some disagreement and some points you just haven't considered (whether rightly or wrongly).
> 
> The reason you don't want discussion is that like all personal narratives, you know in your bones it's correct... It's just that everyone else comes up with these excuses (valid arguments) not to listen to you (why you might be wrong in at least part of your view). And you just can't be bothered to keep patiently explaining why they are wrong (snarkily dismissing any arguments you can't answer).
> 
> You see, you're not unheard. Your just not always right.


Wait.  What exactly am I being accused of here?  I think you need to slow your roll a little.  

Only thing I've tried to contribute to this thread is that the conclusion you are asserting is flawed.  There are style that will not ever succeed as fighting styles (or defense styles) because they are entirely divorced from fighting and defense.

I provided an example.  I could give you others.  Simply put, there are some martial arts "styles" that would, if trained "right" cease to exist because they would be found completely impractical.

As for the rest, it sounds to me like you're whining and are lashing out a little, ironically, by accusing other people of whining and lashing out. 

So, maybe chill out a little.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I can't really agree with the tone of your post here, Dave. I don't really know Martial D well enough yet, but Steve and DB are not so entirely irrational as you suggest. I've had productive discussions with both. They have strong biases - as you well point out, we all do - but there's some solid thought behind those biases. I actually appreciate them challenging my thoughts, though I wish some folks could let go of an idea when it becomes clear there's evidence on both sides of it. In the end, I think they contribute a lot here. I disagree with DB pretty frequently, and sometimes to the point I don't care to continue the frustration, but he brings an informed viewpoint. And Steve is pretty rational in his arguments - though entirely wrong, whenever he disagrees with me.


Come on, man.  Bias?  It's called an opinion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Come on, man.  Bias?  It's called an opinion.


Yeah, well that's your bias.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Wait.  What exactly am I being accused of here?  I think you need to slow your roll a little.
> 
> Only thing I've tried to contribute to this thread is that the conclusion you are asserting is flawed.  There are style that will not ever succeed as fighting styles (or defense styles) because they are entirely divorced from fighting and defense.
> 
> I provided an example.  I could give you others.  Simply put, there are some martial arts "styles" that would, if trained "right" cease to exist because they would be found completely impractical.
> 
> As for the rest, it sounds to me like you're whining and are lashing out a little, ironically, by accusing other people of whining and lashing out.
> 
> So, maybe chill out a little.


agreed, I've made the point to Dave,several times about the wing Chun boxing, it a) looks effective and b) looks nothing like wing Chun and Dave can't identify a single wing Chun characteristic in it. It's fair to say that in making wing Chun effective , wing Chun has ceased to exist in that,style


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> Wait.  What exactly am I being accused of here?  I think you need to slow your roll a little.
> 
> Only thing I've tried to contribute to this thread is that the conclusion you are asserting is flawed.  There are style that will not ever succeed as fighting styles (or defense styles) because they are entirely divorced from fighting and defense.
> 
> I provided an example.  I could give you others.  Simply put, there are some martial arts "styles" that would, if trained "right" cease to exist because they would be found completely impractical.
> 
> As for the rest, it sounds to me like you're whining and are lashing out a little, ironically, by accusing other people of whining and lashing out.
> 
> So, maybe chill out a little.



You are right, I shouldn't have lumped you in with Dropbear and Martial D. I misread your post.  My apologies. 

As to the Thread topic stuff, I did reply to your frog kungfu vid. 

You could be right but your attempt at showing it was poor. A single out of context clip of what is possibly one form in a martial arts style is so far from evidence of ineffectiveness it's hard to think of a weaker argument. 

We may not all know stats or the scientific method, but if you've seen one court room drama, or even an episode of law and order, you should be able to begin seeing why a funny clip doesn't condemn a whole fighting system.

You'd be better off finding a video of frog kungfu 2 person drills or 1-step defences. Better still get 3 or 4 vids so we can clearly see what is going on. Then instead of scoffing at it you can explain what doesn't work.

It's not some wide eyed love of kungfu mysticism that prompts my position. My arguments are sound and work for all the martial arts I've encountered. Fighting skill is independent of fighting style. 

Fighting style can in theory be so inefficient as to be worthless, but realistically that is so unlikely because:
there are only so many ways a body can move, 
purely cultural exposure to fighting methods will offer some guidance as to good form,
most fighting arts came from some kind of testing environment.

So by all means prove me wrong. Find me these crazy ridiculous martial arts that break my theory.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> agreed, I've made the point to Dave,several times about the wing Chun boxing, it a) looks effective and b) looks nothing like wing Chun and Dave can't identify a single wing Chun characteristic in it. It's fair to say that in making wing Chun effective , wing Chun has ceased to exist in that,style



I can identify plenty. You can't because you somehow think your ignorance of a thing makes other people wrong about it so you chose to stay ignorant to maintain the illusion of victory.

Note, 2 people have given up trying to communicate with you in this one thread.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> agreed, I've made the point to Dave,several times about the wing Chun boxing, it a) looks effective and b) looks nothing like wing Chun and Dave can't identify a single wing Chun characteristic in it. It's fair to say that in making wing Chun effective , wing Chun has ceased to exist in that,style



Sort of. There is a lot of overlap in concept between boxing and wing chun. Just boxing is such a variant style that when people pick out the differences. They can cherry pick.

So if it was wing chun vs a counter fighter like maywheather. Then very different. Vs Kostya Tzu. Not so much.

The issue is that wing chun decides what is and isnt wing chun based on a system I have never fathomed. Overhand rights are wing chun. BJJ  is wing Chun. Rotational punching isn't. Honestly I think it is based on whim.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> I can identify plenty. You can't because you somehow think your ignorance of a thing makes other people wrong about it so you chose to ssnstay ignorant to maintain the illusion of victory.
> 
> Note, 2 people have given up trying to communicate with you in this one thread.


no two people have given up trying to sell me tosh when they realised I'm not buying their nonsense. i specificaly 
 asked you to back up your claim that wing Chun boxing had any actual wing Chun in it and you refused to do so, in those circumstances its only fair to conclude you can't do so. 

you've made this wild claim that any style can be,effective, extraordinary claim need extraordinary evidence and you can't even provide ordinary evidence, now your pretending you could be but you don't want to. I have a 7 yo that try's that trick


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> No the counter was I laid out specific details as to what my assertion applied to and you had ignored that so you could post your yellow bamboo video.
> 
> As to frog kungfu, I simply don't know enough about it.
> However if your following the thread you should know that the outward appearance of forms isn't necessarily linked to application. So yes we can all laugh at the crazy kungfu antics, but until we know what the application principles of the style are, which form elements are literal, which are symbolic and which are exercise we have no base with which to discuss the style.
> 
> An example might be that the height changes where he ends up on all 4s are symbolic of double leg takedowns; the jumping from couched symbolic of/training the legs for dumping throws where you pick up the opponent from beneathe their centre of gravity; the kicking from the the floor just exercise for throwing the whole body into short sharp kicks and the running punch bit a literal technique.
> 
> In application that might then look like a style that used a lot of height change, including jumping kicks and superman punches and flying knees, to hide tackles and takedowns and dumping throws, followed up with stamps. That defends primarily by just getting out of the way and uses a lot of shirt jumps to regain balance or to land strikes while dodging.
> 
> The success of such a style will be in the core skills, just like any other style. Can you move well and avoid being cut off. Can you entice the opponent to chase and judge distance to counter hit. Can you sell your high faints and get down fast enough for a takedown... etc.
> 
> The now I could be entirely wring about this style and it is just showy nonsense without guiding principles. It could he that there is a genuine less showy frog style that this is related to and study of that reveals pretty effective fighting methods and what we see here is the Chinese gov approved non martial wushu demo form (which would preclude it from this discussion). But without further information the fact that you can look at a video out of context and scoff at it doesn't do anything to the proposition at hand.
> 
> And frankly I'm disappointed. It's no wonder Britain keeps voting Tory and America voted trump if we think laughing at out of context footage somehow constitutes an argument. Do better.




Well yellow bamboo is a self defence style. And it doesn't work. And it obviously doesnt work. There is no hiding behind this idea that anyone has to have a 10 year knowledge of that particular style to find out if it doesn't work.

I mean it is pretty simple.

If yellow bamboo doesnt work but is not one of your styles you accept.

Then you did not mean any style will work. You ment certain styles will work.

And yes certain styles will work if you train them right. But certain styles are not any style. And then all you have to do is look to see if those styles do work. And why those styles work.

Which is also a pretty simple process. Because you see the style in use and it works or it doesn't.

Your concept is meta. I like meta. So there are principles that are common to styles that work. That is why they tent to look similar in aplication. If a style contains those meta concepts then trained right with the right individual it has the potentual to work.

Yellow bamboo or weird frog style it has none of those meta concepts. And surprise, suprise it doesn't work.

If you look at wing chun. It has some of those meta concepts. And kinda works.

When we look at chun in the ring. It has more of those mata concept and works better.

The reason Yellow bamboo does not count as a style is because you have allready applied meta concepts before you even considered its entry into your personal decision of what is and is not going to be a style. Sorry that still makes my point that some styles work. And they pretty much work because they share common traits.

All of this comes back to some styles work better than others.

This is also why I can't just make up a style and make it work.

And these arguments you can't adress. Other than complaining about them being somehow unfair. This is because you are working off belief and dogma. Not any sort of logic. You would like any style to work. Hey I would like any style to work. But there is no logic that leads me to that conclusion  at this point.

They are not unfair just because your theory has holes I can drive a truck through.


----------



## Steve

Okay.  If you're really going to hold me to an academic standard for this thread, you need to go first.  Can you point me to where you define all of the terms you're using in your argument?  You're going to have to rigorously define what you mean by martial arts, style, "works", effective, fight, training and pretty much every other subjective term you use in your ironclad, logical argument.  If you could include in these definitions your objective criteria for evaluating "all martial arts styles" and also be very specific about what styles you have actually experienced, and to what degree. 

I will be honest, I don't actually care overly much about it.  But you're applying a standard to others that you have not lived up to yourself.  Or maybe you have, but it's so spread out over the course of 27 posts that it's difficult to track.  I'm just a simple caveman lawyer, so short sentences would be helpful. 

Or, maybe you could stop being an *** and have a friendly conversation with some folks.  I would prefer that.

Edit:  I will add that the irony here is that you and I are pretty close on this.  Where we seem to deviate is in the absolute nature of your argument.  In general, as I said earlier in the thread, I agree that how a style is trained makes all the difference in whether it can be practical.  however, there are some styles (as I said just a few posts ago) that would lose all essence if the training model were changed.  In other words, how they are trained is integral to it being that style.  @Flying Crane has gone into this in great detail over the years.  Whether his style is effective or not is anyone's guess, but he has very strong opinions about the link between his training model and his style's identity.


----------



## DaveB

Ok, here we go again.

There are these things called titles. They anounce the piece of work you have done. Sometimes they are descriptive, sometimes they are eyecatching (metaphorically), sometimes a bit of both.

What they are not, is an argument. 

So when I laid out my argument I knew some... person, would try to be clever and avoid the point being made with something stupid. 

Like psychic powers. 
Which don't exist. 
So I set pretty reasonable criteria to keep the discussion on track, within the body of the argument I was making.

I have never called anything unfair. Any discussion has parameters. If you really think going outside those parameters means something then carry on.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Ok, here we go again.
> 
> There are these things called titles. They anounce the piece of work you have done. Sometimes they are descriptive, sometimes they are eyecatching (metaphorically), sometimes a bit of both.
> 
> What they are not, is an argument.
> 
> So when I laid out my argument I knew some... person, would try to be clever and avoid the point being made with something stupid.
> 
> Like psychic powers.
> Which don't exist.
> So I set pretty reasonable criteria to keep the discussion on track, within the body of the argument I was making.
> 
> I have never called anything unfair. Any discussion has parameters. If you really think going outside those parameters means something then carry on.


you won't even tells us what,WORKS means, though you have said that even if a,style consistently looses it can still count as working


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Ok, here we go again.
> 
> There are these things called titles. They anounce the piece of work you have done. Sometimes they are descriptive, sometimes they are eyecatching (metaphorically), sometimes a bit of both.
> 
> What they are not, is an argument.
> 
> So when I laid out my argument I knew some... person, would try to be clever and avoid the point being made with something stupid.
> 
> Like psychic powers.
> Which don't exist.
> So I set pretty reasonable criteria to keep the discussion on track, within the body of the argument I was making.
> 
> I have never called anything unfair. Any discussion has parameters. If you really think going outside those parameters means something then carry on.



Plenty of examples of yellow bamboo working. Just exists within the realm of training.

I mean multiple attackers and knife defence don't really exist either.

Or essentially end up the same way yellow bamboo does.


----------



## drop bear

I mean you want to see magical powers. Here you go.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I mean you want to see magical powers. Here you go.


If I ever face a gun, I hope the gunman is on tranquilizers like that.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> Okay.  If you're really going to hold me to an academic standard for this thread, you need to go first.  Can you point me to where you define all of the terms you're using in your argument?  You're going to have to rigorously define what you mean by martial arts, style, "works", effective, fight, training and pretty much every other subjective term you use in your ironclad, logical argument.  If you could include in these definitions your objective criteria for evaluating "all martial arts styles" and also be very specific about what styles you have actually experienced, and to what degree.
> 
> I will be honest, I don't actually care overly much about it.  But you're applying a standard to others that you have not lived up to yourself.  Or maybe you have, but it's so spread out over the course of 27 posts that it's difficult to track.  I'm just a simple caveman lawyer, so short sentences would be helpful.
> 
> Or, maybe you could stop being an *** and have a friendly conversation with some folks.  I would prefer that.
> 
> Edit:  I will add that the irony here is that you and I are pretty close on this.  Where we seem to deviate is in the absolute nature of your argument.  In general, as I said earlier in the thread, I agree that how a style is trained makes all the difference in whether it can be practical.  however, there are some styles (as I said just a few posts ago) that would lose all essence if the training model were changed.  In other words, how they are trained is integral to it being that style.  @Flying Crane has gone into this in great detail over the years.  Whether his style is effective or not is anyone's guess, but he has very strong opinions about the link between his training model and his style's identity.



It's hardly an academic standard to ask to see what an art actually looks like in application before judging it. 

No matter how sarcastic the comment, laughing at something won't ever be a solid argument. 

And yes I have defined terms. Most of it is in the first post of the thread.

With regards to the styles that are defined by their training, if that's really the case and the styles are ineffective then yes they would disprove my position... 

assuming I didn't define a martial art fighting style as one based on mechanical tactical and strategic principles, which I might have as that us how I define a fighting style. If I did then styles based on a training regime wouldn't count. 

I will have to check the first post.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> It's hardly an academic standard to ask to see what an art actually looks like in application before judging it.
> 
> No matter how sarcastic the comment, laughing at something won't ever be a solid argument.
> 
> And yes I have defined terms. Most of it is in the first post of the thread.
> 
> With regards to the styles that are defined by their training, if that's really the case and the styles are ineffective then yes they would disprove my position...
> 
> assuming I didn't define a martial art fighting style as one based on mechanical tactical and strategic principles, which I might have as that us how I define a fighting style. If I did then styles based on a training regime wouldn't count.
> 
> I will have to check the first post.



Sometimes satire is more equiped to deal with incomplete logic than logic.


----------



## DaveB

DaveB said:


> This to me is self evident but many disagree, so what better topic for discussion.
> 
> So first to the terms:
> Fighting style: method of conducting fights. For most this includes trying to "win" but not always.
> The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of.
> 
> Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight?
> 
> A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style.
> 
> Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you.
> Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work.
> 
> Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas.
> 1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter.
> 
> 2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion or interruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights.
> 
> The training in concept 1 is to develop the universally neccessary skills in concept 2, IN ADDITION TO the core methods of the style.
> 
> Fundamentally it comes down to, "What does it take to hit with x, apply y and make use of z?".
> 
> I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge.
> 
> IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works.
> 
> And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one).
> I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work.
> 
> So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Disagree with the terms? Let's hear it!



I did not initially define a fighting style in terms of combative principles so yes, those styles defined purely by training cannot have said training changed and so are exceptions to this idea.

Though I'm sure it would have come up at some point. C'est la vie.

It's interesting going over my first post as I was pretty precise. It's funny how many folk just straight ignored the argument being made.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Sometimes satire is more equiped to deal with incomplete logic than logic.


And other times it's how a demagogue distracts people from his lack of a point.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> And other times it's how a demagogue distracts people from his lack of a point.



Notice how i produced evidence and you didn't?


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Notice how i produced evidence and you didn't?


Sorry, I thought I was reminding you of something you were educated enough to have known, not starting a new off topic debate in this thread.

My mistake.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Sorry, I thought I was reminding you of something you were educated enough to have known, not starting a new off topic debate in this thread.
> 
> My mistake.



And this obvious attempt to hide that you just made that concept up. With no means to support it is why you get sarcasm rather than argument.

Hey guys sorry I should be educated more. Then Dave B would make more sense.


----------



## DaveB

Distraction Fallacies

Since you speak meme, there's also this:


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> I was comiserating with him over the deep unfairness of it all. The poor little lamb just can't get us to listen to his actual factual evidence about why every non combat sports practitioner is useless.
> 
> The poor persecuted darling. It's all so unfair, how can he live with all these charlatans and fantasists.
> 
> My heart is literally bleeding all over the floor...
> 
> 
> 
> That's hilarious (all my sympathy went on poor little dropbear). The invocation of science in relation to your random YouTube assessments, tickles me.
> 
> When someone tries to explain what a scientific approach would look like you call them politically correct. What you do on these forums has nothing to do with science or evidence or data. It is purely your perception with all its biases and cognitive dissonance, exactly the same as those who oppose you. And there's nothing wrong with that. Facts preclude discussion.
> 
> The problem you and dropbear (and now it seems Steve) have is nothing to do with whether or not criticism of style is allowed. That's just that old persecution narrative b.s. that gets rolled out by those who feel unheard.
> 
> The trouble you have is that all you want to hear is that you are right and all those styles you say are useless, are indeed useless. The thing you actually don't want is discussion, because that is what you get here. Some agreement, some disagreement and some points you just haven't considered (whether rightly or wrongly).
> 
> The reason you don't want discussion is that like all personal narratives, you know in your bones it's correct... It's just that everyone else comes up with these excuses (valid arguments) not to listen to you (why you might be wrong in at least part of your view). And you just can't be bothered to keep patiently explaining why they are wrong (snarkily dismissing any arguments you can't answer).
> 
> You see, you're not unheard. Your just not always right.


Nice rhetoric. I challenge you to back it up.

I'm all about rational and productive argument, and I fully admit many members here are more than willing to engage. Unfortunately such people are drowned out by the scarcely literate and emotionally explosive much of the time, which gets piled on to by the fan club that doesn't even read the arguments.
Such is the nature of the fantasy fighting club.

This doesn't bother me much, it's just the reality. Many just don't come here for discussion, they come for reassurance...which makes people like myself, drop bear, and others as the defacto enemy.


----------



## DaveB

I've provided as much proof of position as you have. And frankly I'm bored of the whining.

I don't really see how people can be drowned out on a web forum. Your description doesn't really resonate with me. I experience these discussions quite differently. 

The only people I've seen not read posts are Jobo and DropBear (and very occasionally myself, sorry again Steve). 

Just ignore those who are emotional and talk with the rational if that's what you are about... but consider your own communication before you dismiss the responses you get.

As to this fantasy fight club, I'm really not sure what it is you want folks to say other than x style sucks. I never see any opposition to the idea that sparring is a necessary component of effective application training. So what makes one a member of the fantasy fight club?


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> I've provided as much proof of position as you have. And frankly I'm bored of the whining.
> 
> I don't really see how people can be drowned out on a web forum. Your description doesn't really resonate with me. I experience these discussions quite differently.
> 
> The only people I've seen not read posts are Jobo and DropBear (and very occasionally myself, sorry again Steve).
> 
> Just ignore those who are emotional and talk with the rational if that's what you are about... but consider your own communication before you dismiss the responses you get.
> 
> As to this fantasy fight club, I'm really not sure what it is you want folks to say other than x style sucks. I never see any opposition to the idea that sparring is a necessary component of effective application training. So what makes one a member of the fantasy fight club?


fantasy fight club, well three things as i see it
one) they keep insisting that things work when they have no evidence for that at all, particularly when the things are high risk low % moves that will see them sat on their bum against an averagely capable oppoinent


2) being dismissive of the requirement for,strength and physical fitness believing that the afore mentioned low % techniques will see them through against fitter stronger bigger opponents 

3 ) believing that low intensity sparring against a person using the same naff techniques as they are is in anyway like a real fight


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> fantasy fight club, well three things as i see it
> one) they keep insisting that things work when they have no evidence for that at all, particularly when the things are high risk low % moves that will see them sat on their bum against an averagely capable oppoinent
> 
> 
> 2) being dismissive of the requirement for,strength and physical fitness believing that the afore mentioned low % techniques will see them through against fitter stronger bigger opponents
> 
> 3 ) believing that low intensity sparring against a person using the same naff techniques as they are is in anyway like a real fight



Anybody feel they fit this description?


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Anybody feel they fit this description?


are you expecting people to self identify as fantasists, the fact they are fantasists will prevent them from seeing themselves in a true light. Those are all recurrent themes on here, you for instance have spent twenty odd pages insisting that silly things work, if you train them right, even things you have absolutely no knowledge of will work according to you.

every time there is,a,discussion on strengh or fitness people are,queueing up to say that they don't need to get stronger as their techniques are good enough

and as soon as people start complaining that people are going to hard in sparring, its fair to assume that their,sparring is,soft, yet they insist that the same soft sparring is pressure testing them.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> are you expecting people to self identify as fantasists, the fact they are fantasists will prevent them from seeing themselves in a true light. Those are all recurrent themes on here, you for instance have spent twenty odd pages insisting that silly things work, if you train them right, even things you have absolutely no knowledge of will work according to you.



Except that after 27+ pages that's still not what I was arguing. 

This would be why multiple people end up just ignoring you.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Except that after 27+ pages that's still not what I was arguing.
> 
> This would be why multiple people end up just ignoring you.


that might not be what's going on in your head, but that is indeed what you keep arguing

you original premise is,deeply flawed, in order to support it you have come out with all sorts of nonsense,


----------



## Buka

28 pages ago I asked a question about the OP, but the thread ran wild and the question got lost. So again, [talking about the original post and title of the thread]
By "work" I take it to mean in a fight, or in competitive contact sparring, yes?


----------



## jobo

Buka said:


> 28 pages ago I asked a question about the OP, but the thread ran wild and the question got lost. So again, [talking about the original post and title of the thread]
> By "work" I take it to mean in a fight, or in competitive contact sparring, yes?


I've asked the same question several times and the answer seems be no, just because it isn't good enough to use successfully in a fight, dave still thinks that it counts as  working


----------



## DaveB

Buka said:


> 28 pages ago I asked a question about the OP, but the thread ran wild and the question got lost. So again, [talking about the original post and title of the thread]
> By "work" I take it to mean in a fight, or in competitive contact sparring, yes?



In the OP I wrote works = achieves or credibly approaches the style objective. This is because I do think it's worth considering what a style is designed for. Karate for example had no set fighting guard, because it wasnt primariky designed to be used in duelling. 
But I do think most if not all styles can be adapted towards sparring/ring fighting as I view this as a simple progression of the threat level. 

So the short answer is yes.


----------



## DaveB

Buka said:


> 28 pages ago I asked a question about the OP, but the thread ran wild and the question got lost. So again, [talking about the original post and title of the thread]
> By "work" I take it to mean in a fight, or in competitive contact sparring, yes?



Yes is the short answer.

The nuance-phobe is referring to the question, does work mean winning? To which I answer not necessarily. After all you don't decide boxing doesn't work if a boxer loses a fight. Rather you talk about the relative skill of the opponent. Hence a style can work without winning.

However I can see how I might have been unclear before. Yes, across a number of even matches with different practitioners a style that works should have about as many victories as defeats. But if you take one person and train him and send him to be your representative, his victories and defeats reflect only him.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> In the OP I wrote works = achieves or credibly approaches the style objective. This is because I do think it's worth considering what a style is designed for. Karate for example had no set fighting guard, because it wasn't primarily designed to be used in duelling.
> But I do think most if not all styles can be adapted towards sparring/ring fighting as I view this as a simple progression of the threat level.
> 
> So the short answer is yes.



Because a guard isn't really necessary except for dueling. And yes I do get what you mean by dueling as in a fight where you both have a bit of warning. Rather than just being jumped.

Because who would need a guard then?

Rather than they just didn't adopt the method because guard wasn't being utilized.

OK. So in boxing they don't have to win every fight because there are recorded trends and progressions.

 So if Connor looses this boxing match. We can judge it based on more than the outcome of one fight.

We can access two peoples recorded fights.

We can judge the two peoples fights on a hundred recorded fights. Between them they have probably a hundred guys.

We can judge these hundred recorded guys on their thousands of fights.

With the absence of that data. How do you define works.


----------



## DaveB

> Because a guard isn't really necessary except for dueling. And yes I do get what you mean by dueling as in a fight where you both have a bit of warning. Rather than just being jumped.
> 
> Because who would need a guard then?
> 
> Rather than they just didn't adopt the method because guard wasn't being utilized.
> 
> OK. So in boxing they don't have to win every fight because there are recorded trends and progressions.
> 
> So if Connor looses this boxing match. We can judge it based on more than the outcome of one fight.
> 
> We can access two peoples recordedfights.
> 
> We can judge the two peoples fights on a hundred recorded fights. Between them they have probably a hundred guys.
> 
> We can judge these hundred recorded guys on their thousands of fights.
> 
> With the absence of that data. How do you define works.



That's one of the points I've been trying to make: you can't. You need data.

Or rather, the definition doesn't change. We just have to settle for not knowing.

Unless someone takes the ideas presented in this forum and does a large study there is no way to check any of this.

So this thread is a thought experiment only.

As for the guard issue, guards were being used both in the southern Chinese arts that karate borrowed from and among karate practitioners  when they would duel. But that aspect was never codified as part of the art because the emphasis was on counter offensive, defending from a neutral position.

You may not think it's the right way to do things but that was how they did it.

Shotokan in particular took it's fighting style straight from fencing. All of its strategy, discussion of timing and emphasis on a decisive blow was nothing to do with karate, because the Japanese had never been taught karate for fighting. So once Funakoshi died they created their sport style based on fencing and that was now how karateka fought. Other styles varied it a bit according to their common movement types and with new tournament formats  (Kyokushin) came different approaches, but none of these new fighting styles was actual Okinawan karate.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> That's one of the points I've been trying to make: you can't. You need data.
> 
> Or rather, the definition doesn't change. We just have to settle for not knowing.
> 
> Unless someone takes the ideas presented in this forum and does a large study there is no way to check any of this.
> 
> So this thread is a thought experiment only.
> 
> As for the guard issue, guards were being used both in the southern Chinese arts that karate borrowed from and among karate practitioners  when they would duel. But that aspect was never codified as part of the art because the emphasis was on counter offensive, defending from a neutral position.
> 
> You may not think it's the right way to do things but that was how they did it.
> 
> Shotokan in particular took it's fighting style straight from fencing. All of its strategy, discussion of timing and emphasis on a decisive blow was nothing to do with karate, because the Japanese had never been taught karate for fighting. So once Funakoshi died they created their sport style based on fencing and that was now how karateka fought. Other styles varied it a bit according to their common movement types and with new tournament formats  (Kyokushin) came different approaches, but none of these new fighting styles was actual Okinawan karate.



With competition there is plenty of data.

So with Karate. Regardless that having some sort of guard is almost universally accepted as a good thing. They just decided they did not want to have it as part of their style..

Which is fine. But I think that it kind of makes my point that a style can just ignore meta fight concepts and just do its own thing for any or no reason.


----------



## DaveB

As I was watching I thought it might help those less inclined to educate themselves.
The entire series of answers to common questions covers the use and appearance of their wing chun. 

Alan Orr echoes my comments regarding the TMA tendency to work based on principles rather than techniques and details how he uses the principles of his art in a practical form.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> As I was watching I thought it might help those less inclined to educate themselves.
> The entire series of answers to common questions covers the use and appearance of their wing chun.
> 
> Alan Orr echoes my comments regarding the TMA tendency to work based on principles rather than techniques and details how he uses the principles of his art in a practical form.


yea they all work when you have a slow motion training partner holding his arm out so you can trap it


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> yea they all work when you have a slow motion training partner holding his arm out so you can trap it


True for pretty much every instructor ever.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

jobo said:


> yea they all work when you have a slow motion training partner holding his arm out so you can trap it


If I can move faster than you can, none of your MA skill can get me. This is why to be able to run fast is important in MA training.


----------



## DaveB

jobo said:


> yea they all work when you have a slow motion training partner holding his arm out so you can trap it



Troll. You are just trolling now.

You wanted to know how to identify the wing chun that won a boxing match. You get that from an instructor who not only advocates sparring but who puts fighters into mma matches and your only comment is that what he shows only works on a compliant partner?

Troll. You are just trolling now.


----------



## DaveB

Duplicate


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> As I was watching I thought it might help those less inclined to educate themselves.
> The entire series of answers to common questions covers the use and appearance of their wing chun.
> 
> Alan Orr echoes my comments regarding the TMA tendency to work based on principles rather than techniques and details how he uses the principles of his art in a practical form.



That is fine but one system doesnt make all systems.Some arts have stupid principles.


----------



## jobo

DaveB said:


> Troll. You are just trolling now.
> 
> You wanted to know how to identify the wing chun that won a boxing match. You get that from an instructor who not only advocates sparring but who puts fighters into mma matches and your only comment is that what he shows only works on a compliant partner?
> 
> Troll. You are just trolling now.


no my comment was he only SHOWS it working on a complient partner,

yes all,styles will work if your stooge just stands there with his arm out, is that what you ment when you started this thread. ?You should have said so


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> no my comment was he only SHOWS it working on a complient partner,
> 
> yes all,styles will work if your stooge just stands there with his arm out, is that what you ment when you started this thread. ?You should have said so



OK. Here not so much. The demonstration against a live oponant is the fights his guys win. The demo is the method he is using.

Alan Orr's fighters do win fights.

Do they win them with chun? Maybe.

Is Alan Orr's method unique enough to be considered its own system? Probably.

Does catching hands out of mid air work well in a fight? Well it is definitely ambitious.


----------



## drop bear

Ok the elphant in the room with Alan Orr's wing chin is this guy.

Leo Negao.
Fight Teams - Alan Orr Wing Chun Academy






If any fighting system can work. Why the hell did alan Orr bring in an expert from a different system? 

Notice I made that extra sarcastic so CB doesn't actually have to address this as a point.


----------



## DaveB

Maybe because its mixed martial arts??

Does boxing not work by your definition since every boxer in mma learns ground fighting as well?


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Maybe because its mixed martial arts??
> 
> Does boxing not work by your definition since every boxer in mma learns ground fighting as well?



Yes if you look at one of my original arguments it says boxing does not teach you to wrestle. So all styles don't work.


----------



## DaveB

DB Can you quote the passage please?

I think this is a goalpost move on your part. 

You've been quite happy to suggest everywhere else that boxing and muay thai work because they have a proven record of winning fights. It was because of such claims that i created this thread.

Now your uber combat sports don't work because of their obvious limitations along with every other style, placing them all squarely on the same level?

Even if I believed that to be your belief I would disagree with it because the challenge of martial arts has never been to know everything. Add wrestling and your still shy of a defence against bullets and hand grenades.

 It's an unrealistic standard based on fight scenarios that most TMA were not designed for. Any such style v style match ups present a challenge of methodology where the chances of winning are based upon the variety of your training.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> DB Can you quote the passage please?
> 
> I think this is a goalpost move on your part.
> 
> You've been quite happy to suggest everywhere else that boxing and muay thai work because they have a proven record of winning fights. It was because of such claims that i created this thread.
> 
> Now your uber combat sports don't work because of their obvious limitations along with every other style, placing them all squarely on the same level?
> 
> Even if I believed that to be your belief I would disagree with it because the challenge of martial arts has never been to know everything. Add wrestling and your still shy of a defence against bullets and hand grenades.
> 
> It's an unrealistic standard based on fight scenarios that most TMA were not designed for. Any such style v style match ups present a challenge of methodology where the chances of winning are based upon the variety of your training.



Shifting goalposts as opposed to any style works but not any style and no real definition of works.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> So little Johnny gets caught for stealing and is told what he did was wrong.
> 
> His excuse is "But what about all the other kids who steal?"
> 
> Just because the individual and the training and the circumstance plays a role. Does not discount that the style plays a role as well.
> 
> There is a reason boxers tend to wrestle worse than wrestlers.



Here


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Shifting goalposts as opposed to any style works but not any style and no real definition of works.



Again, you need to read the first post, not just the eye catching title. All the terms and reasons for placing limits are fully explained. 

If you want to dispute my reasoning be my first.

Also nothing I have written affects your consistency or lack thereof. Even if I'm the biggest hypocrite in the world, you dont get an out from being caught bsing to make your point because you've pointed a finger at me. 

Justify the change or own the error but there's no need for playground excuses.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Here


That doesn't say what you claim it does.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Does catching hands out of mid air work well in a fight? Well it is definitely ambitious.


That's a generous statement, DB.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If any fighting system can work. Why the hell did alan Orr bring in an expert from a different system?


I'm running low on time, so didn't watch the video, but I'll take a stab. Because cross-training fills gaps. An effective system is not a foolproof system (I wish one of those existed - let's work on that one). Bringing in an outside expert is not necessarily an indication of a problem in a system.

I assume you knew that already, but I gotta answer the question, since it was asked.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yes if you look at one of my original arguments it says boxing does not teach you to wrestle. So all styles don't work.


I think this is where we get back to needing some clarity on "works". Boxing does work. It also has a big gap. BJJ (as taught where they only train for BJJ competition) works, but has a big gap. The two complete each other (how romantical!) - almost...still no kicks, but that's survivable.


----------



## DaveB

gpseymour said:


> I think this is where we get back to needing some clarity on "works". Boxing does work. It also has a big gap. BJJ (as taught where they only train for BJJ competition) works, but has a big gap. The two complete each other (how romantical!) - almost...still no kicks, but that's survivable.



Again, we never needed clarification to say wing chun doesn't work.

And again, I defined "works" in the first post of the thread. The latest clarification spurred some of Drop Bear's latest contributions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> Again, we never needed clarification to say wing chun doesn't work.
> 
> And again, I defined "works" in the first post of the thread. The latest clarification spurred some of Drop Bear's latest contributions.


You did define it...


DaveB said:


> A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style.


...but that hardly gives us a definitive cut-off. It's a good conceptual definition, but we can't really measure against anything in that, as it changes with every individual and every style. In fact, it almost makes it impossible for a style to "not work", unless someone chooses the wrong style for themselves. The definition doesn't actually allow for what the style's intention is.

Let me clarify. If I went into boxing to improve my cardio, it wouldn't matter whether I ever was able to fight or not. But fighting ability appears to be the intent of boxing, so if boxing couldn't deliver fighting ability, we should be able to say it "doesn't work". But we can't, because of my goal.

Likewise, if I go to a standard aerobics class to learn to fight, aerobics will fail that test no matter how it is trained, since it contains precisely no actual fighting techniques. But if I go in to improve my cardio, it "works". And we shouldn't assess aerobics' effectiveness at something it's not intended to cover, so the fact that it actually doesn't work for learning to fight is not an issue.


----------



## DaveB

gpseymour said:


> You did define it...
> 
> ...but that hardly gives us a definitive cut-off. It's a good conceptual definition, but we can't really measure against anything in that, as it changes with every individual and every style. In fact, it almost makes it impossible for a style to "not work", unless someone chooses the wrong style for themselves. The definition doesn't actually allow for what the style's intention is.
> 
> Let me clarify. If I went into boxing to improve my cardio, it wouldn't matter whether I ever was able to fight or not. But fighting ability appears to be the intent of boxing, so if boxing couldn't deliver fighting ability, we should be able to say it "doesn't work". But we can't, because of my goal.
> 
> Likewise, if I go to a standard aerobics class to learn to fight, aerobics will fail that test no matter how it is trained, since it contains precisely no actual fighting techniques. But if I go in to improve my cardio, it "works". And we shouldn't assess aerobics' effectiveness at something it's not intended to cover, so the fact that it actually doesn't work for learning to fight is not an issue.



First thank you for discussing the propositions in the OP. 

I see where you are coming from, but you've neglected the word that was supposed to keep the discussion on track. It is the Fighter' s goal. The fighters goal in using the fighting style.

Remember I have been adamant that the fighting style is NOT the training. Fighting style is the use of the fighting art.

I am happy to concede I may have communicated this badly, but it helps when people read and discuss the posts made.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> First thank you for discussing the propositions in the OP.
> 
> I see where you are coming from, but you've neglected the word that was supposed to keep the discussion on track. It is the Fighter' s goal. The fighters goal in using the fighting style.
> 
> Remember I have been adamant that the fighting style is NOT the training. Fighting style is the use of the fighting art.
> 
> I am happy to concede I may have communicated this badly, but it helps when people read and discuss the posts made.


That was kind of my point. The definition shifts so quickly when we use an individual's goal. Even if we assume the individual is someone wanting to fight, there still a huge range to cover - from being able to score in super-light point fighting to no-holds-barred illegal fights to the death. What "works" for the first will fail long before it gets to handling a boxer, a semi-experienced street fighting thug, or an experienced Jiujitero.

I don't think you communicated it badly. You got the concept across - it just doesn't give any real guidelines as to how we could measure effectiveness for anything beyond that individual. And with that fluidity, everyone can argue their own stance. You can show how it fits, by aligning it with the individual's goal (so, anything that could be a reasonable goal makes something "work"). I could argue from a "likely to serve in 'the street' or not" standpoint. DB could argue from a "likely to work in a ring or no" standpoint. And so on. I think that's what's got folks saying there's no definition of "works" - because the definition depends upon the practitioner.


----------



## DaveB

gpseymour said:


> That was kind of my point. The definition shifts so quickly when we use an individual's goal. Even if we assume the individual is someone wanting to fight, there still a huge range to cover - from being able to score in super-light point fighting to no-holds-barred illegal fights to the death. What "works" for the first will fail long before it gets to handling a boxer, a semi-experienced street fighting thug, or an experienced Jiujitero.
> 
> I don't think you communicated it badly. You got the concept across - it just doesn't give any real guidelines as to how we could measure effectiveness for anything beyond that individual. And with that fluidity, everyone can argue their own stance. You can show how it fits, by aligning it with the individual's goal (so, anything that could be a reasonable goal makes something "work"). I could argue from a "likely to serve in 'the street' or not" standpoint. DB could argue from a "likely to work in a ring or no" standpoint. And so on. I think that's what's got folks saying there's no definition of "works" - because the definition depends upon the practitioner.


You are kinder than I to most people. 

But fair enough, I can see the issue with the definition, so how about something more simple.

How about, fight successfully against other styles in any limited rules sub pro sparring competition that scores with the use of the arts primary tools/Or defend ones self from the proscribed level of threat in a street altercation (for those arts like Aikido that have no sparring ability. 

Or could be successfully employed as a component of an mma arsenal?

Any suggestions? What would you be happy with?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> You are kinder than I to most people.
> 
> But fair enough, I can see the issue with the definition, so how about something more simple.
> 
> How about, fight successfully against other styles in any limited rules sub pro sparring competition that scores with the use of the arts primary tools/Or defend ones self from the proscribed level of threat in a street altercation (for those arts like Aikido that have no sparring ability.
> 
> Or could be successfully employed as a component of an mma arsenal?
> 
> Any suggestions? What would you be happy with?


Okay, so you're thinking a striking art should be able to compete (sub-pro) with other striking arts, for instance. That makes sense. There's an inherent advantage to competitive training approach in that (only training what's allowed by the rules), but that's covered pretty well, since any art could choose that approach.

I wouldn't exempt Aikido from that measure. IMO, a complete version of an aiki art either contains enough striking and in-close (what I refer to as "Judo-style") grappling, or is intended as an add-on to an existing  base. In the latter case, it doesn't have to meet the measurement - it's for sharpening someone who already has a functional base and giving them some new tools to play with. In the former case, it should be able to adapt (theoretically) by spending little or no time on the techniques that wouldn't be applicable to the competition.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

DaveB said:


> Fighting style is the use of the fighting art.


- A Judo guy is not going to do well against a wrestler in no-jacket wrestling.
- A wrestler is not going to do well against a Judo guy in jacket wrestling.
- As far as an Aikido guy against a wrestler, or against a Judo guy in both jacket and no-jacket wrestling, there is not enough data to draw any conclusion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - A Judo guy is not going to do well against a wrestler in no-jacket wrestling.
> - A wrestler is not going to do well against a Judo guy in jacket wrestling.
> - As far as an Aikido guy against a wrestler, or against a Judo guy in both jacket and no-jacket wrestling, there is not enough data to draw any conclusion.


A Judoka training no-gi has enough tools to compete (not necessarily win, but be competitive) with a wrestler. We have several Judo-derived techniques, and we rarely use the jacket as part of the technique (since there may not be an analog available "in the street").

An Aikidoka trained in close grappling techniques (using Judo-style training methods) will be at a disadvantage (fewer tools in that range), but should still be able to make a reasonable showing (similar counters learned, for one thing). For styles of Aikido that don't have close-in techniques or strikes, they don't fit this model, as outlined in my earlier post.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm running low on time, so didn't watch the video, but I'll take a stab. Because cross-training fills gaps. An effective system is not a foolproof system (I wish one of those existed - let's work on that one). Bringing in an outside expert is not necessarily an indication of a problem in a system.
> 
> I assume you knew that already, but I gotta answer the question, since it was asked.



You are looking at this the wrong way. The example is not designed to determine whether a system is effective or not. This is because works is so unclearly defined as to be argued anything works within its own scope. 

But these are examples of systems cut and dried not working. Systems needing change to function rather than working though the system to find an answer or correct training or better individuals.

So if the system does not have all the answers in this very obvious example. Then all systems dont magically work.

And this has been my basic and consistant argument through the whole coversation.


----------



## drop bear

So first to the terms:
Fighting style: method of conducting fights. For most this includes trying to "win" but not always.
The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of.

So Alan Orr is not a poor quality instructor he did not seek better instruction. He sought out a different system to make his style work.

Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive.

There wasn't a training difference. They did not just start doing wing chun or MMA on the ground. That is not what an expert BJJ or MMA instructor does. See system change to make work.

Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight?

They can chi sau all they want. They are still also doing BJJ. 

A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style.

Well that didnt happen did it.

Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you.
Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work.

There is no wing chun method to deal with ground work. The reason Alan Orr's guys counteract ground work is with BJJ.

Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas.
1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter.

There was no genetically advanced wing chun guy, system, method of training that worked. Adopting a new system worked. 

2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion orinterruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights.

Unless like Alan Orr your system does not contain those tools.

The training in concept 1 is to develop the universally neccessary skills in concept 2, IN ADDITION TO the core methods of the style.

If skills were universally taught. Alan Orr would not need a BJJ expert. He would just use his own system.

Fundamentally it comes down to, "What does it take to hit with x, apply y and make use of z?".

Which some systems just dont have the correct answer to.

I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge. 

And regardless how good I get at mario kart I will not succeed at Dark Souls. Because the system matters.

IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works.
Exept it is not universal is it? 

And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one).
I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work.

Like chun and ground work.

So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Disagree with the terms? Let's hear it!


Does that address your terms specifically enough?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That was kind of my point. The definition shifts so quickly when we use an individual's goal. Even if we assume the individual is someone wanting to fight, there still a huge range to cover - from being able to score in super-light point fighting to no-holds-barred illegal fights to the death. What "works" for the first will fail long before it gets to handling a boxer, a semi-experienced street fighting thug, or an experienced Jiujitero.
> 
> I don't think you communicated it badly. You got the concept across - it just doesn't give any real guidelines as to how we could measure effectiveness for anything beyond that individual. And with that fluidity, everyone can argue their own stance. You can show how it fits, by aligning it with the individual's goal (so, anything that could be a reasonable goal makes something "work"). I could argue from a "likely to serve in 'the street' or not" standpoint. DB could argue from a "likely to work in a ring or no" standpoint. And so on. I think that's what's got folks saying there's no definition of "works" - because the definition depends upon the practitioner.



The issue is I think he is trying to say there is some sort of intelligent design inherently behind martial arts systems. And that is not always the case. Like when people try to discern the meaning behind obscure song lyrics. There may be no meaning sometimes the writer is just on acid.

Stairway To Heaven by Led Zeppelin Songfacts


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You are looking at this the wrong way. The example is not designed to determine whether a system is effective or not. This is because works is so unclearly defined as to be argued anything works within its own scope.
> 
> But these are examples of systems cut and dried not working. Systems needing change to function rather than working though the system to find an answer or correct training or better individuals.
> 
> So if the system does not have all the answers in this very obvious example. Then all systems dont magically work.
> 
> And this has been my basic and consistant argument through the whole coversation.


By the definition you're using, I think I'd agree. But if we use the updated definition Dave has given, a standing art bringing in tools from a ground-heavy art doesn't really have any bearing. And I kind of like that distinction, because a system can "work" and still have big holes - boxing is my best example of this. Nobody would reasonably say boxing doesn't work, just because they have no grappling or ground game. They might say it's flawed, but that would be measuring it against something it's not (so far as I can tell) intended to be.

Hmmm...let's take this a bit further. If a good Muay Thai gym brings in a boxing coach, is that because there's something wrong with Muay Thai? Not necessarily, I'd argue. They may simply want to expand its ability to deal with boxing, or maybe the head of the gym sees some interesting stuff in boxing he thinks will translate to MT competition, too. So, the presence of an outside expert doesn't necessarily say anything about the system. Now, if that Muay Thai gym ditched their MT clinch for a boxing clinch, swapped their MT guard for a boxing guard, and replaced a strike or two, that would seem to be a flaw of some sort in MT (if those changes turned out superior results). But it still wouldn't necessarily mean it wasn't effective before. Maybe it was, and is now _more effective_. Perhaps some of that is what's going on with WC boxing. I know too little about WC to make any firm conclusions. I've never sparred a WC guy, and there's too little evidence of WC in competition for me to draw a conclusion. The lack of evidence makes me skeptical, but it doesn't convince me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The issue is I think he is trying to say there is some sort of intelligent design inherently behind martial arts systems. And that is not always the case. Like when people try to discern the meaning behind obscure song lyrics. There may be no meaning sometimes the writer is just on acid.
> 
> Stairway To Heaven by Led Zeppelin Songfacts


That is the issue, and it's a problem especially with very old arts, which have almost certainly evolved (purposely or otherwise) from what they originally were. Along the way, it is possible they lost their original designed purpose. I think highly experienced instructors are at risk of helping this happen - the better we know the art, the more we think about tweaking it, and perhaps the more we overthink it.

So, even an art that was originally derived from highly effective civilian defense can possibly turn into a dance of misunderstood movements. IMO, sparring with other styles helps highlight the dancing, so it can be eliminated.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> By the definition you're using, I think I'd agree. But if we use the updated definition Dave has given, a standing art bringing in tools from a ground-heavy art doesn't really have any bearing. And I kind of like that distinction, because a system can "work" and still have big holes - boxing is my best example of this. Nobody would reasonably say boxing doesn't work, just because they have no grappling or ground game. They might say it's flawed, but that would be measuring it against something it's not (so far as I can tell) intended to be.
> 
> Hmmm...let's take this a bit further. If a good Muay Thai gym brings in a boxing coach, is that because there's something wrong with Muay Thai? Not necessarily, I'd argue. They may simply want to expand its ability to deal with boxing, or maybe the head of the gym sees some interesting stuff in boxing he thinks will translate to MT competition, too. So, the presence of an outside expert doesn't necessarily say anything about the system. Now, if that Muay Thai gym ditched their MT clinch for a boxing clinch, swapped their MT guard for a boxing guard, and replaced a strike or two, that would seem to be a flaw of some sort in MT (if those changes turned out superior results). But it still wouldn't necessarily mean it wasn't effective before. Maybe it was, and is now _more effective_. Perhaps some of that is what's going on with WC boxing. I know too little about WC to make any firm conclusions. I've never sparred a WC guy, and there's too little evidence of WC in competition for me to draw a conclusion. The lack of evidence makes me skeptical, but it doesn't convince me.



And you see how nuance kind of muddies the waters. When the concept is still. All styles work. 

Yes we could argue this in the little detalis. But I wanted to make an obvious point people could grasp.

If there are big issue with striking basically never giving you the tools to grapple. Then it opens the door for striking never giving you the tools to strike well.

Works is still defined by its basic function of working. Not a metaphysical concept of all styles have the tools hidden somewhere inside them if you train it right.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That is the issue, and it's a problem especially with very old arts, which have almost certainly evolved (purposely or otherwise) from what they originally were. Along the way, it is possible they lost their original designed purpose. I think highly experienced instructors are at risk of helping this happen - the better we know the art, the more we think about tweaking it, and perhaps the more we overthink it.
> 
> So, even an art that was originally derived from highly effective civilian defense can possibly turn into a dance of misunderstood movements. IMO, sparring with other styles helps highlight the dancing, so it can be eliminated.



Or sport jujitsu. In other words.


----------



## DaveB

Since turnabout is fair play, Drop bear, I can't properly assess your arguments as You have not defined what you mean by "works".

And no I'm not being pedantic, we threw out my definition and you are arguing from a position that as I said before, is far removed from the views you expressed that caused me to create this thread.

If you don't want to stick to your older views of what works that is fine, but please define what it is so that I can understand exactly what we are working with.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> So first to the terms:
> Fighting style: method of conducting fights. For most this includes trying to "win" but not always.
> The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of.
> 
> So Alan Orr is not a poor quality instructor he did not seek better instruction. He sought out a different system to make his style work.
> 
> Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive.
> 
> There wasn't a training difference. They did not just start doing wing chun or MMA on the ground. That is not what an expert BJJ or MMA instructor does. See system change to make work.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight?
> 
> They can chi sau all they want. They are still also doing BJJ.
> 
> A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style.
> 
> Well that didnt happen did it.
> 
> Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you.
> Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work.
> 
> There is no wing chun method to deal with ground work. The reason Alan Orr's guys counteract ground work is with BJJ.
> 
> Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas.
> 1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter.
> 
> There was no genetically advanced wing chun guy, system, method of training that worked. Adopting a new system worked.
> 
> 2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion orinterruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights.
> 
> Unless like Alan Orr your system does not contain those tools.
> 
> The training in concept 1 is to develop the universally neccessary skills in concept 2, IN ADDITION TO the core methods of the style.
> 
> If skills were universally taught. Alan Orr would not need a BJJ expert. He would just use his own system.
> 
> Fundamentally it comes down to, "What does it take to hit with x, apply y and make use of z?".
> 
> Which some systems just dont have the correct answer to.
> 
> I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge.
> 
> And regardless how good I get at mario kart I will not succeed at Dark Souls. Because the system matters.
> 
> IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works.
> Exept it is not universal is it?
> 
> And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one).
> I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work.
> 
> Like chun and ground work.
> 
> So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Disagree with the terms? Let's hear it!
> 
> 
> Does that address your terms specifically enough?


Yes, thank you and well done.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> A Judoka training no-gi has enough tools to compete (not necessarily win, but be competitive) with a wrestler.


In jacket wrestling, a Judo guy tries to get sleeve hold and lapel hold ASAP. In no-jacket wrestling, what will be a Judo guy's initial goal?

For Shuai-Chiao, in no-jacket wrestling, the goal is to put both palms on top of opponent's both elbow joints - the mantis arm. This way you can control your opponent's arms temporary. You can then move in and attack whenever you want to.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Since turnabout is fair play, Drop bear, I can't properly assess your arguments as You have not defined what you mean by "works".
> 
> And no I'm not being pedantic, we threw out my definition and you are arguing from a position that as I said before, is far removed from the views you expressed that caused me to create this thread.
> 
> If you don't want to stick to your older views of what works that is fine, but please define what it is so that I can understand exactly what we are working with.



Verifiable consistent evidence of success.


----------



## DaveB

gpseymour said:


> That is the issue, and it's a problem especially with very old arts, which have almost certainly evolved (purposely or otherwise) from what they originally were. Along the way, it is possible they lost their original designed purpose. I think highly experienced instructors are at risk of helping this happen - the better we know the art, the more we think about tweaking it, and perhaps the more we overthink it.
> 
> So, even an art that was originally derived from highly effective civilian defense can possibly turn into a dance of misunderstood movements. IMO, sparring with other styles helps highlight the dancing, so it can be eliminated.


 
I'm really not arguing any sort of intelligent design.

My position has always been that the skills necessary to land a punch or defend a punch are independent of style.

When you watch two boxers testing each other, gauging *distance*, seeing what *angles* open when they draw out a response, knowing *when* to lean out of punches range and when to move their feet to stay safe etc... You are not witnessing anything unique to boxing as a fighting style, only skills that playing the game of boxing helps you to develop.

Therefore if my art punches and I get good at landing punches it's not because my art is awesome, it's because I trained to land punches well.

So where does style come in?
Mostly on a tactical level.

An art like wc emphasises striking while close but with mostly straight shots. So the question for the student becomes what do I need to do to land my straight shot in close?

Specialisms enable both focus on and mastery of a finite skill set, while also defining clearly where you're weakest and thus letting you know what common counters to expect.

So mastery over a styles specialisms in combination with excellence in core skills should make a wc striker as effective as any other striker, such as a boxer or kick boxer or karateka (who are just as likely to be specialised.

And there have been some good counter arguments made to this point, most notably that if the style is both mechanically unsound and tactically weak, your punch can be both ineffective and leave you vulnerable  (I'm paraphrasing).

My answer was to agree in theory but:
The TMA tendency to work based on principles rather than techniques enables pragmatic variation of the form of the techniques, for which Alan Orr and the Aikido training video were both examples.
Second (not sure if I said this yet) mechanical efficiency is mitigated by training and use of other tools. So for example, my wc punch would be weak as anything, but a guy with 5 years of practicing that method will hit pretty hard with it. And where a punch might not land as hard, an elbow will, especially if your core skills have let you maximise impact through timing.

In other words I don't think being the second hardest hitter in the ring is that big a deal.

Now, as I said the goal posts are being moved because those striking arts that were the gold standard are now being said not to work.

So fine if you define a styles ability to work based on that which it was not designed for then no style works. Which while it tanks my proposition it also tanks the argument that this thread was intended to counter: that some styles work better than other's.  No style works so all styles suck. Your style bashing is still baloney.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In jacket wrestling, a Judo guy tries to get sleeve hold and lapel hold ASAP. In no-jacket wrestling, what will be a Judo guy's initial goal?
> 
> For Shuai-Chiao, in no-jacket wrestling, the goal is to put both palms on top of opponent's both elbow joints - the mantis arm. This way you can control your opponent's arms temporary. You can then move in and attack whenever you want to.


I'm not a Judo guy, so I can't speak to their likely approach to that if they trained no-gi. For me, it would probably be to get to clinch. If I can't get that, I want one underhook.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Verifiable consistent evidence of success.


We'd still have to define "success". And probably agree upon what's allowable "evidence", since you and I have had that discussion before.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> Your style bashing is still baloney.


_*My*_ style bashing?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I'm not a Judo guy, so I can't speak to their likely approach to that if they trained no-gi. For me, it would probably be to get to clinch. If I can't get that, I want one underhook.


What was the step before your clinch or under hook?

I will do the following:

wrist -> elbow -> shoulder (or head)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What was the step before your clinch or under hook?
> 
> I will do the following:
> 
> wrist -> elbow -> shoulder (or head)


That entirely depends upon what they do. Sometimes I can go directly to clinch. Other times, I have to use an arm drag to get there (like your progression). The same applies for an underhook, except that an over-commitment of weight can make it easier to achieve.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> We'd still have to define "success". And probably agree upon what's allowable "evidence", since you and I have had that discussion before.



It would be a start if any definition of those terms were used.

I mean yes it is easy to do with competition and hard to do with self defence. 

But the responsibility isn't mine to validate everyones war stories.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Verifiable consistent evidence of success.



Ah, but now your definition is subject to all the pitfalls that mime fell into.

What is evidence? What is success? Is 100 students who successfully lowered their blood pressure a style that works? Etc etc.

Even if we go the obvious route, this definition wipes out your whole bjj argument. Since varified success asks nothing of how much of the fight is the style in question to be used for. 

A single knockout punch after 2.5 rounds spent hugging on the floor in an mma match counts towards whatever fighting style the punch is from. 

Also any pure style tournament gives you verifies success. Boxing works in boxing tourneys all the time. So does wing chun on wing chun tourneys.


----------



## DaveB

S


gpseymour said:


> _*My*_ style bashing?


Clearly not, just forgot to whom I had hit reply.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> It would be a start if any definition of those terms were used.
> 
> I mean yes it is easy to do with competition and hard to do with self defence.
> 
> But the responsibility isn't mine to validate everyones war stories.


No, but you are only being asked to define terms for the statement you made.

You want to argue that no style works or some styles work and others don't, so we need a definition of "works". 

So far your own definition kills your argument if taken as I believe it is meant, so further clarification is necessary.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> So first to the terms:
> Fighting style: method of conducting fights. For most this includes trying to "win" but not always.
> The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of.
> 
> So Alan Orr is not a poor quality instructor he did not seek better instruction. He sought out a different system to make his style work.
> 
> No, he added bjj training for people who wanted to compete in mixed martial arts. Ground fighting is not a requirement of making an effective striking art. Knowing how to counter ground fighting is. And yes you can counter ground fighting with striking and sprawling, it's been happening in mma matches for years.
> 
> Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive.
> 
> There wasn't a training difference. They did not just start doing wing chun or MMA on the ground. That is not what an expert BJJ or MMA instructor does. See system change to make work.
> 
> No system was added to for an environment that it wasn't designed for. Same as every other martial art that goes into mma. Hence the name *mixed* martial arts. Deciding you are better off knowing ground work than not doesn't change whether or not you can effectively hit an opponent.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight?
> 
> They can chi sau all they want. They are still also doing BJJ.
> 
> A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style.
> 
> Well that didnt happen did it.
> 
> The boxing match I posted says otherwise.
> 
> Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you.
> Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work.
> 
> There is no wing chun method to deal with ground work. The reason Alan Orr's guys counteract ground work is with BJJ.
> 
> I wholeheartedly disagree and refute your argument thusly:
> Punch to the face while standing.
> Knee to the face during takedown attempt.
> Sprawling as a reinterpretation of the standard evasion principles of the art.
> All are ways for wing chun to fight a ground fighter.
> 
> Lots of modern mma fighters will keep ground specialists on their feet and win with striking.
> 
> Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas.
> 1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter.
> 
> There was no genetically advanced wing chun guy, system, method of training that worked. Adopting a new system worked.
> 
> Orr's wing chun is simply an advancement from idealised training to practical training, and training is not the fighting art.
> 
> So even if we accept the idea that the bjj is a change to their training, if when they fight they are still using chun principles and fighting successfully as strikers then you are seeing wing chun working.
> 
> 2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion or i
> nterruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights.
> 
> Unless like Alan Orr your system does not contain those tools.
> 
> Which of the things I listed does Alan Orr's system not posses?
> 
> The training in concept 1 is to develop the universally neccessary skills in concept 2, IN ADDITION TO the core methods of the style.
> 
> If skills were universally taught. Alan Orr would not need a BJJ expert. He would just use his own system.
> 
> Ground fighting is not a core skill for landing or avoiding strikes. Nor is it useful for anything but mma. As a kungfu system the appropriate tourney to test wing chun in is sanshou. No ground work allowed.
> 
> Fundamentally it comes down to, "What does it take to hit with x, apply y and make use of z?".
> 
> Which some systems just dont have the correct answer to.
> 
> The answers are universal and while a style might exist that is so rigid it only allows use of its own methods even for landing shots, We would still need to check to see if it's rules were incorrect or unworkable which I think is unlikely.
> 
> I don't believe such a style exists, but I'll be happy for you to prove otherwise.
> 
> I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge.
> 
> And regardless how good I get at mario kart I will not succeed at Dark Souls. Because the system matters.
> 
> False comparison. Getting good with the long sword in DS3 doesn't make you a master with the great sword but the skills do cross over.
> 
> IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works.
> Exept it is not universal is it?
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one).
> I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work.
> 
> Like chun and ground work.
> 
> So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Disagree with the terms? Let's hear it!
> 
> 
> Does that address your terms specifically enough?


----------

